PETITIONER:
MOHINDER SAIN GARG ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT15/11/1990
BENCH:
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
BENCH:
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)
CITATION:
1990 SCR Supl. (3) 108 1991 SCC (1) 662
JT 1990 (4) 704 1990 SCALE (2)1014
ACT:
Civil Service:
Excise and Taxation Inspectors-- Appointment of--Exami-
nation-Viva voce--Value and importance of--Fixing 25 of
total marks Whether arbitrary and excessive--Calling for a
large number of candidates--Whether vitiates selec-
tion--Quashing of selection-Desirability of.
HEADNOTE:
For filling up 47 posts of Excise and Taxation Inspec-
tors in Punjab, the Chairman, Selection Committee issued an
advertisement in newspaper. The advertisement stated that
there would be three written papers in English, Punjabi and
General Knowledge of Degree Standard and would carry 100
marks each. Those who obtain 33% in each paper and 40% in
the aggregate were to be called for interview which would
carry 100 marks.
The examination was held and the Selection Committee
called more than 1200 candidates for interview. By the time
the Selection commenced the vacancies increased to 54.
comprising of 28 posts or Taxation Inspectors and 26 posts
of Excise Inspectors. After the interview and selection, all
the 54 posts were filled, taking into account the reserva-
tions made for Scheduled Caste, Backward class, Ex-service-
men, dependents of freedom fighters etc. The appellants who
were unsuccessful in the interview filed a Writ Petition in
the High Court challenging the procedure adopted by the
Selection Committee. The High Court dismissed the Writ
Petitions following two Judgments of its Full Bench, v. iz.,
Joginaer Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1966 Punjab & Har-
yana 339 and Vikram Singh & Ors. v. The Subordinate Services
Selection Board, Haryana & Ors'., AIR 1988 Punjab & Haryana
299. The appellants have preferred the appeals by special
leave, against the Judgment of the High Court. The Writ
Petitioners have approached this Court direct challenging
the selection made.
The appellants and the petitioners contended that since
the Selection Committee had called 1200 candidates for
interview for only 54 posts, it gave the power of arbitrari-
ness for selection of the candidates. It was impossible to
carry out a satisfactory viva voce list if such a large
109
number of candidates were called for interview. The inter-
view was not only casual but also superficial and stoppy and
the assessment made at such interviews can never reflect the
true measure of the personality of the candidates. It was
also contended that keeping 100 marks for interview, that is
25 per cent of the total marks, gave arbitrary powers to the
Selection Committee, and hence violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution.
On behalf of the respondents it.was contended that the
Writ Petitions and appeals were not maintainable since all
the respondents in the High Court were not impleaded; that
since the selected candidates have already joined the posts
such appointments may not be quashed. It was further con-
tended that the observations made in Ashok Kumar Yadav's
case have no relevance to the present cases since the selec-
tion was made by Departmental Selection Committee and not by
Public Service Commission; that all the candidates who had
qualified in the written examination had to be called for
interview irrespective of the number; that marks were award-
ed by the members of selection Committee who were experts,
solely on the basis of the response of candidates and that
no excessive marks were awarded to any candidate.
Dismissing the Writ Petitions and one appeal and allow-
ing the other appeals, this Court,
HELD: 1.1. Ashok Kumar Yadavs case was decided in 1985
and there is no reason why the State of Punjab did not
follow the same for making selections in 1989 for the posts
of Excise and Taxation Inspectors. It is no doubt correct
that the selection of Taxation and Excise Inspectors is done
by a Subordinate Selection body and not by Public Service
Commission yet no valid reason has been given as to why that
principle should not be applied in these cases as well. Even
if the said principle may not in terms apply in these cases
to the extent of laying down 12.5% of the total marks for
viva voce test which was made applicable for selections to
be made by V.P.S.C., the percentage of viva voce test in the
present cases at 25% of the total marks is arbitrary and
excessive. There could be no gain saying that viva voce test
cannot be totally dispensed with, but taking note of the
situation and conditions prevailing in our country, it would
not be reasonable to have the percentage of viva voce marks
more than 15 per cent of the total marks in the selection of
candidates fresh from college/school for public employment
by direct recruitment where the rules provided for a compos-
ite process of selection---namely, written examination and
interview. [133G-H; 134A-C]
110
1.2. It would be doing injustice to such candidates, who
have already been selected and have joined the posts, to
quash their selections even if it is held that 25 per cent
marks for viva voce test were excessively high. [134D-E]
1.3. Though it was not proper for the Selection Commit-
tee to have called as much as 1200 candidates for selection
of 54 posts, the selection cannot be vitiated merely on this
ground as such action is not tainted by any mala fide or
oblique motive. The respondents also stated that they had
called all the eligible candidates as the same practice was
followed since 1970 and according to the rules all such
candidates had qualified in the written examination, and had
to be called for interview.
Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Haryana
JUDGMENT:
etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., [1971] 2 SCR 430; Miss
Nishi Maghu and Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors., [1980] 4 SCC
95; Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors.,
[1981] 1 SCC 722; Koshal Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of J &
K and Ors., [1984] 3 SCR 407, relied on.
State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin and Ors., [1987] Supp. SCC
401; Mahmood Alam Tariq and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan &
Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 241; distinguished.
Liladhar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [1981] 4 SCC 159,
referred to.
2. Even if the entire selection is quashed and a direc-
tion given to hold the viva voce test afresh by reducing the
percentage of marks, it would be a futile exercise so far as
the two Writ Petitioners are concerned, as they stood no
chance of being selected even remotely. According to Ashok
Kumar Yadav’s case candidates should be called only three
times the number of seats available for appointment. If that
criteria was applied then the two Writ Petitioners had
absolutely no chance of being called for interview for the
one post of Taxation Inspector in the category of backward
class. [135C-E].
Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Haryana
& Ors. etc. etc. [1985] Suppl. SCR 657, referred to.
3.1. In the general category 897 candidates had appeared
in interview and so far as one of the four appellants, viz.,
Rajesh Kumar
111
Saili is concerned, he secured 26 marks in interview and his
position was 668th. He stood no chance of being called for
interview if candidates upto three times the number of the
posts were called for interview. Even if the percentage of
marks in viva voce was reduced from 25 per cent to 15 per
cent he stood no chance of selection even remotely. [135G-H]
3.2. The respondents are directed to appoint the other
three appellants belonging to general category on the posts
of Taxation Inspector/Excise Inspector as the case may be,
if they are otherwise found suitable for these posts. It is
further made clear that in case anyone of these appellants
has become over-aged during this period, this would not be
considered as a disqualification for their appointment to
the above post. [136G-H; 137-A]
&