CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 03, 2009
Dr.Rajbir Singh Yadav and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
Mr. H. N. Mehtani, Advocate,
for HPSC.
Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.13, 28, 37, 51 and 74.
Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate
for respondent No.9.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.16651 of
2003 (Dr.Rajbir Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and
others), 18025 of 2002 (Sudhir Kumar Kalra Vs. Haryana Public
Service Commission and others), 2326 of 2003 (Dr.Rawat Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003 :{ 2 }:
Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission and others), 3986 of
2003 (Jatinder Verma Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission
and others), 4911 of 2003 (Naresh Kumar and others Vs. State
of Haryana and others), and 14691 of 2004 (Dr.Anita Balain and
others Vs. State of Haryana and others). The facts are being
taken from Civil Writ Petition No.16651 of 2003.
The petitioners have challenge the selection of
candidates appointed to the posts of Principal/senior Specialists
(H.E.S. Class II School Cadre) made pursuant to the advertisement
dated 5.3.2002, Annexure P-2. On 5.3.2002, Haryana Public Service
Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Commission”) invited
applications for 85 posts of Principals, Government Senior
Secondary Schools/Senior Specialists HES-II out of which 53 posts
were meant for general category. The qualification prescribed for
these posts were M.A/M.Sc./M.Com. IInd Division and B.T./B.Ed. or
its equivalent along with 8 years’ experience as on 5.4.2002. The
petitioners, being fully eligible, applied for the said posts. Screening
test was held on 25.5.2002. The result thereof was published on
5/6.6.2002. On 26.6.2002 onwards, the petitioners were called for
interview. They, however, were not selected. They were also not
disclosed the marks for screening test or for interview. They were
also unaware of the criteria, which was adopted for the interview. The
final result of the interview was published on 13.8.2002. The
petitioners obtained some information about the selected candidates.
They accordingly filed these writ petitions, alleging that the selection
has been made to accommodate kith and kin of members and even
the ineligible persons, who did not fulfill the requisite experience of 8
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003 :{ 3 }:
years teaching had been selected. The petitioners accordingly
approached the Commission with a prayer to supply the criteria
adopted by them for making selection. However, when the
Commission did not supply any information in response to the
representation, the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No.16913 of
2002 for a direction to the respondents to supply the criteria adopted
for making selection to the posts of Principals and so also the details
of marks, which the petitioners and other selected candidates have
obtained. This prayer of the petitioners was not accepted by this
Court. However, it was observed that it would always be open for the
petitioners to challenge the selection of selected candidates and
accordingly, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.
When the case came up for hearing on 11.2.2009, this
Court observed that criteria laid down by the Commission for
recruitment to the posts of Principal be placed on record of the
aforesaid writ petition. Complying with this order, the Commission
through its Application No.6781 of 2009 placed on record additional
reply, mentioning the criteria, which was followed by the Commission
while making recruitment to the posts of Principal, HES Class II. A
perusal of the criteria placed on record revealed that there were total
100 marks for viva-voce test, which were distributed as under:-
“1. Personal achievements:-
There will be 25 marks for Higher qualification,
experience and co-curricular activities.
Marks will be awarded according to the following criteria:-
(a) Higher Qualification (Maximum 10 marks)
i. For Ph.D. 10 marks
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003 :{ 4 }:
ii. For M.Phil. 5 marks
iii.For M.Ed. 5 marks
Candidates possessing both Ph.D. And M.Phil. Or
M.Ed. Will not be awarded more than 10 marks.
b. Experience:- (Maximum 10 marks)
2 marks per year will be awarded for teaching or
administrative experience in addition to what experience
is necessary to make a candidate eligible. The maximum
marks for experience will be 10 marks.
(c) Position in University Examination in Post Graduation:-
Candidate getting first, Second & Third position in
University examination at post graduation level will be
awarded 5 marks in all i.e.:-
First Position 5 marks
Second Position 3 marks
Third Position 2 marks
II. Interview:-
The interview test will be conducted to test the knowledge
of the subject, intelligence, awareness, teaching faculty,
articulations, expression, speaking ability and other
related qualities. There will be 75 marks assigned for this
test. They are distributed as under:-
i. Knowledge and awareness 25 marks
ii. Teaching faculty including articulation 22 marks
expression and speaking ability.
Iii. Intelligence and other qualities 25 marks
In order to make a precise assessment the Candidate will
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003 :{ 5 }:
be granted in consultation with the expert advisor in the
following categories for each of the three groups of
qualities. Marks will be awarded in accordance with
category in which a candidate is graded:-
i. Knowledge and awareness:-
a. Good 18-25
b. Average 9 - 17
c. Poor 1-8
ii. Teaching faculty including articulation, expression and
speaking ability:-
a. Good 18-25
b. Average 9 - 17
c. Poor 1-8
iii.Intelligence and other qualities:-
a. Good 18-25
b. Average 9 - 17
c. Poor 1-8
For qualifying the viva-voce test the candidate must
obtain at least 40% marks in aggregate.”
When this criteria was placed on record by the
Commission, the counsel for the petitioners sought time to point out
short-comings and arbitrariness in the said criteria. This permission
was granted vide order dated 16.4.2009 with a direction that advance
copies be provided to the counsel for the respondents to file
response thereto. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application,
pointing out infirmities and arbitrariness in the criteria that was
adopted by the Commission. The challenge to the criteria was made
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003 :{ 6 }:
on number of grounds as contained in the said application with a
plea that fixing of viva-voce marks in this manner will violate the
provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as such, it
was accordingly liable to be struck down. Some submissions were
made on the basis of law laid down in Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib
Sehravardi, 1981 (1) SCC 722 and Ashok Kumar Yadav and
others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1985 (4) SCC 417.
Basically, it was alleged that 100 marks fixed for evaluation only on
the basis of interview would lead to arbitrary consideration and
selection and hence, was bad on that count.
The Commission filed a response to this challenge raised
on behalf of the petitioners in the application. The criteria adopted by
the respondent-Commission has been justified. It is stated in the
reply that the criteria does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity as
pointed out in the application. It is further pleaded that the petitioners
had participated in the selection process and once having not
succeeded there at, have chosen to challenge the criteria. Reference
is made to number of judgments in this regard to say that where the
challenge was made to the process of selection after participation,
such a challenge would not need consideration. Justifying the
method of selection and appointment, it is pointed out that yardstick
to be followed for allocation of marks in cases where the selection is
made on the basis of written test and viva-voce can not be applied to
the case in which selection is exclusively made on the basis of
interviews. Accordingly, the judgments relied upon by counsel for the
petitioners have been distinguished.
When the matter came up for hearing on 23.7.2009, the
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003 :{ 7 }:
submissions on behalf of the petitioners ultimately centered around
the fact of fixing 75 marks for the interview. This, according to the
petitioners, could be utilised in the discretion of the Members to
select the preferred ones. From this, counsel for the petitioners have
forcefully argued that arbitrariness in fixing the criteria is indicated.
In this background, it is thought proper to call for the
record of selection to see in case any of the candidate has been
given excessive marks during interview or in other words, the
candidates who were not selected and were the petitioners, were
brought down while assessing them in the interview so as to oust
them. The evaluation done by the Interview Committee was
summoned to be placed before the Court in a sealed cover.
Mr.Mehtani today has brought before this Court the record of
selected candidates as well as those candidates who could not make
it on the basis of merit. I have perused the record and have noticed
that there is not much substantial difference in the assessment of
candidates in the interview marks. Generally there is a difference of 1
or 2 marks in the assessment of candidates as far as the interview is
concerned. In some of the cases, the marks obtained by the
candidates, who could not be selected, were rather little higher than
those who did make the grade. I am, thus, satisfied that there is no
arbitrariness or discrimination noticeable from the marking in the
interview. Otherwise also, the selection in the present case was
made in the year 2002 and the candidates selected have already
worked for over a period of 7 years. Prima-facie, I have not been able
to see any arbitrariness or unfairness in the method of selection or
fixing of criteria, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003 :{ 8 }:
jurisdiction.
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. The record,
after perusal, has been got resealed and returned to Mr.H.N.Mehtani,
counsel for the Commission.
August 03, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE