IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 08.09.2011
LPA No.1053 of 2011
Gur Jai Pal Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Punjab Public Service Commission and another ...Respondents
LPA No.1054 of 2011
Gursharan Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Punjab Public Service Commission and another ...Respondents
LPA No.1055 of 2011
Harnek Singh and others ...Appellants
Versus
Punjab Public Service Commission and another ...Respondents
Present: Mr. H.C.Arora, Advocate, for the appellant(s).
Ms. Rita Kohli, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent(s).
LPA No.1068 of 2011
Maninder Partap Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Punjab Public Service Commission and another ...Respondents
Present: Mr. Saqib Ali Khan, Advocate, for the appellant.
Ms. Rita Kohli, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent(s).
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
This order shall dispose of aforementioned four letters patent
appeals arising out of a common order passed by the learned Single Judge
LPA No.1053 of 2011 2
of this Court on 03.06.2011, whereby number of writ petitions challenging
the action of the Punjab Public Service Commission in respect of candidates
to be called for the main examination were dismissed.
Punjab Public Service Commissioner (for short ‘the
Commission’) issued an advertisement dated 26.11.2009 inviting
applications for filling up of 143 posts through Punjab Civil Services
Combined Competitive Examination, 2009. However, by corrigendum
dated 21.12.2009, the posts of Excise & Taxation Officers were increased
from 37 to 74 and, thus, the total number of seats brought within the
purview of examination were increased to 180.
Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) (Class-I), Rules,
1976 i.e. the statutory Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India deals with conduct of Preliminary Examination and
the candidates to be called for the Main Examination. The relevant
provisions read as under:
“12. (1) A preliminary competitive examination, the regulations of
which are contained in Appendix II of these rules, shall be held at any
place in the State of Punjab as and when notified by the Government
through the Commission for the purpose of selection of candidates for
admission to the main competitive examination as specified in rule 13-A.”
xxx xxx xxx
"13.(1) Applications for permission to sit in the preliminary competitive
examination will be called by the Commission and shall be made in the
manner and form prescribed and accompanied by such documents or
papers as may be required by the Commission in this behalf.”
xxx xxx xxx
“13-A (1) A main competitive examination, the regulations of which are
contained in Appendix III of these rules, shall be held at any place in the
State of Punjab as and when notified by the Government through the
Commission for the purpose of selection by competition of as many
candidates for the service as Government may determine.
(2) Notice of the date fixed for the main competitive examination shall
be published in the Punjab Government Gazette.
LPA No.1053 of 2011 3
(3) No candidate shall be allowed to sit in the main competitive
examination, unless he has qualified the preliminary competitive
examination in terms of the provision of rule 12.
(4) The total number of candidates to be admitted to the main
competitive examination shall not exceed thirteen times the total number
of vacancies determined by the Government under sub Rule (1).”
The Commission issued brochure for Punjab State Civil
Service Combined Competitive Examination, 2009 containing information
in respect of number of vacancies, category-wise break up, the conditions
relating to preliminary and main competitive examination. The preliminary
competitive examination was contemplated to consist of two papers of
objective type (multiple choice questions) and carry a maximum of 450
marks. The candidates, who qualify in the preliminary competitive
examination, are entitled to apply for admission to the main competitive
examination.
The present appeals are by the candidates belonging to
Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes, wherein the grievance is that the
Commission has prepared list of candidates to b called for main
examination in vertical manner i.e. called thirteen times of the candidates of
each category. In such process, the candidates from the reserved categories,
who fall within the cut-off of General category cannot be counted towards
the determining the number of candidates of reserved categories to be called
for main examination. It is argued that if 10 Backward Class candidates
appear in the merit list of General category, then 10 additional candidates
are required to be called for main examination from the Backward Class
category. Thus, the appellants have been excluded from appearing in the
main competitive examination. It is contended that the percentage of
reservation fixed under the Rules is required to be applied at all stages of
the examination process including preliminary examination. Since the
LPA No.1053 of 2011 4
percentage of reservation has not been applied at the stage of preliminary
examination, therefore, the short-listing of candidates for the purpose of
main examination is not legal.
Before the learned Single Judge, it was argued that the
preliminary examination per se is not a process of selection, but only
prelude to initiation of selection process. The short-listing through the
mode of preliminary examination is only a qualifying examination and the
strict rules of reservation have no application at the stage of qualifying
examination. The learned Single Judge relied upon Jitendra Kumar Singh
and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 3 SCC 119,
wherein the Court has considered the concession of relaxation in age and
fee for the candidates belonging to social reservations falling within Article
16(4) of the Constitution of India and held that such benefit availed by
social classes is inconsequential, as the open competition has not yet
commenced. Relying upon the said judgment as well as on Andhra
Pradesh Public Service CommissionVs. Baloji Badhvath and others 2009
(5) SCC 1, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions.
Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants has relied
upon Baloji Badhvath’s case (supra) to contend that the rule of reservation
is applicable at all stages including at the stage of preliminary examination,
which has not been followed.
On the other hand, Ms. Rita Kohli, learned Additional
Advocate General, Punjab argued that in terms of Rules, thirteen times of
candidates in each category have been called. The cut-off marks for the
General category are 290.017, whereas the candidates of all other categories
have been permitted to appear in the main examination, who have obtained
less marks than the said cut-off marks except in Freedom Fighters category.
LPA No.1053 of 2011 5
In respect of such category, Ms. Kohli has made a statement today that all
candidates belonging to Freedom Fighters category, who obtained the same
cut-off mark of General category i.e. 290.017 shall be permitted to appear in
the main examination.
For the facility of reference, the details of the candidates,
number of posts and the candidates, who have passed, are mentioned below:
CODE CATEGORY POSTS REQUIRE IN MERIT CUT OFF
NAME D
71 GENERAL 85 1105 1106 290.017
72 ESM, PUNJAB 13 169 119 68.456
73 LDESM, PUNJAB 48 203.578
74 FREEDOM 1 13 14 305.050
FIGHTER,
PUNJAB
75 SPORTS 2 26 26 226.510
PERSON,
PUNJAB
76 PHYS, HANDI., 5 65 66 223.063
PUNJAB
77 SC OTHERS, 19 247 249 276.023
PUNJAB
78 SC ESM, 7 91 12 68.456
PUNJAB
80 SC OTHERS, 1 13 4 211.155
SPOTS PERSON,
PUNJAB
81 B/M SIKH, 18 234 236 231.117
PUNJAB
82 B/M SIKH ESM, 2 26 1 88.591
PUNJAB
84 B/M SIKH 1 13 2 230.923
SPORTS
PERSON,
PUNJAB
85 BC, PUNJAB 24 312 317 225.017
86 BC, ESM, 2 26 12 68.456
PUNJAB
TOTAL 180 2340 2212
We have heard learned counsel for the parties, but do not find
any merit in the present set of appeals. The number of candidates to be
called for main examination is contained in sub-clause of Rule 13-A. In
terms of sub Rule 1, the number of vacancies is as mentioned in Column
LPA No.1053 of 2011 6
No.3 of the Table, mentioned above. The Commission has called thirteen
times of the candidates in respect of number of posts out of each category.
While determining the number of candidates to be called for main
examination, the candidates of reserved category, who fall within the merit
as General category having not been excluded. It is the case of the
Commission that with the process adopted by the Commission, the scope of
candidates of reserved category, in fact, has been widened. It is also argued
that the principle of reservation is not applicable at the stage of qualifying
the candidates for main examination, as the principle of reservation would
be applicable only at the time of filling up of posts as a result of the main
examination.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the
argument of the appellants that the reserved category candidates, who have
come in their own merit in General category cannot be taken into
consideration for determining the candidates to be called for the main
examination, is not meritorious. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jitendra
Kumar Singh’s case (supra) has held that rule of reservation does not apply
at the stage of qualifying examination. The purpose of preliminary test is to
short-list the candidates for appearing in the main examination. The strict
rule of reservation is not applicable at that stage. The Commission has
called thirteen times of the candidates belonging to reserved categories.
The process of merit is required to be finalized on the basis of main
examination and viva-voce. At the stage of preliminary examination, which
is a short listing process of eligible candidates, the rule of reservation
cannot be applied. In Jitendra Kumar Singh’s case (supra), it was held to
the following effect:
LPA No.1053 of 2011 7
“75. In our opinion, the relaxation in age does not in any manner upset the
‘level playing field’. It is not possible to accept the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellants that relaxation in age or the concession
in fee would in any manner be infringement of Article 16(1) of the
Constitution of India. These concessions are provisions pertaining to the
eligibility of a candidate to appear in the competitive examination. At the
time when the concessions are availed, the open competition has not
commenced. It commences when all the candidates who fulfill the
eligibility conditions, namely, qualifications, age preliminary written test
and physical test are permitted to sit in the main written examination. With
age relaxation and the fee concession, the reserved candidates are merely
brought within the zone of consideration, so that they can participate in the
open competition on merit. Once, the candidate participates in the written
examination, it is immaterial as to which category, the candidate belongs.
All the candidates to be declared eligible and participated in the
preliminary test as also in the physical test. It is only thereafter that
successful candidates have been permitted to participate in the open
competition.”
In Baloji Badhvath’s case (supra) again, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that the preliminary examination is not part of the main
examination. The merit of the candidate is not judged thereby. It was held
to the following effect:
“29. Indisputably, the preliminary examination is not a part of the main
examination. The merit of the candidate is not judged thereby. Only an
eligibility criterion is fixed. The papers for holding the examination
comprise of general studies and mental ability. Such a test must be held to
be necessary for the purpose of judging the basic eligibility of the
candidates to hold the tests. How and in what manner, the State as also the
Commission would comply with the constitutional requirements of Article
335 of the Constitution of India should ordinarily not be allowed to be
questioned.
30. The proviso appended to Article 335 of the Constitution, to which our
attention has been drawn by Mr. Rao, cannot be said to have any
application whatsoever in this case. Lowering of marks for the candidates
belonging to the reserved candidates (sic categories) is not a constitutional
mandate at the threshold. …..”
LPA No.1053 of 2011 8
In view of the judgments referred to above, we find that the
policy of reservation for the purposes of short-listing of candidates for the
purpose of main examination is not applicable, it being an eligibility test.
Therefore, the action of the Commission in not applying the principle of
reservation at the stage of preliminary examination cannot be said to illegal,
arbitrary or unjust in any manner, which may warrant any interference in
appeal.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
08.09.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK)
Vimal JUDGE