C.W.P No. 4163 of 2007 ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No. 4163 of 2007
Date of decision : February 24, 2009
Sulochna & another
...... Petitioner (s)
v.
State of Haryana and others,
...... Respondent(s)
***
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. J.S.Dahiya, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana
for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Balraj Singh, Advocate
for respondents No.5 to 7.
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
***
AJAY TEWARI, J
The petitioners have challenged the appointment of respondent
No.7 as Anganwari Worker.
Admittedly, petitioner No.1 is M.A, while petitioner No.2 is
10+2 with I.T.I. In the Middle Examination, petitioner No.1 had 65.8%
marks, while petitioner No.2 had 53.8% marks. On the other hand,
respondent No.7 is 10+2 and she had only 42.5% marks in her Middle
Examination. In the objective part of the selection process, petitioner No.1
C.W.P No. 4163 of 2007 ::2::
obtained 60% marks, petitioner No.2 obtained 53% marks, while respondent
No.7 obtained 48% marks. However, petitioner No.1 got 4/10 marks in the
interview, petitioner No.2 got 2/10 marks, while respondent No.7 was
awarded 9/10 marks. It may also be mentioned here that no other candidate
got more than four out of ten marks in the interview. It is relevant to
mention here that both petitioner No.2 and respondent No.7 are S.C
candidates. As per allegations, respondent No.7 was given nine out of ten
marks only because of her proximity to respondents No.5 and 6 who are
working as Clerks in the office of respondents No.3 and 4 (who were
members of the selection committee) respectively. It is further to be noted
that as per the record produced by the respondents themselves, petitioner
No.1 had obtained total of 64% marks as against respondent No.7 who had
obtained total of 57% marks.
This petition has been resisted by denying the averments that
inordinately high marks were awarded to respondent No.7 in the interview
without, however, explaining as to how this wide discrepancy came in the
interview where an MA passed candidate was given four marks while a
10+2 passed candidate was given nine marks. It has further been pleaded
that petitioner No.1 has since also been appointed as Anganwari Worker in
the same village and, thus, this writ petition qua her has been rendered
infructuous.
Counsel for respondents No.5 to 7 has relied upon the case in
Jasvinder Singh vs State of J & K, 2002(8) SLR 374, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as follows :-
“8. The learned Single Judge also seems to have been
very such carried away by few instances noticed by him
C.W.P No. 4163 of 2007 ::3::
as to award of higher percentage of marks in viva to
those who got lower marks in written test as compared to
some who scored higher marks in written examination
but could not get as much higher marks in viva voce.
Picking up a negligible few instances cannot provide the
basis for either striking down the method of selection or
the selections ultimately made. There is no guarantee
that a person who fared well in written test will or should
be presumed to have fared well in viva voce test also and
the expert opinion about as well as experience in viva
voce does not lend credence to any such general
assumptions, in all circumstances an for all eventualities.
That part the variation of written test marks of those who
were found to have been awarded higher marks in viva
voce viz-a-viz those who secured higher marks in the
written test but not so in the viva voce cannot be said to
be so much (varying from five marks and at any rate
below even 10) as to warrant any proof of inherent vice
in the very system of selection or the actual selection in
the case. There was no specific allegation of any mala
fides or bias against the Board constituted for selection
or any one in the Board nor any such plea could be said
have been sustained in this case. The observation by the
learned Single Judge that there was a conscious effort
made for bring some candidates within the selection zone
cannot be said to be justified from the mere matter fact of
C.W.P No. 4163 of 2007 ::4::
certain instance noticed by him on any general principle
or even on the merits of those factual instances alone.
Further, the course adopted by the learned Single Judge
in directing selection from general candidates all those
who have obtained 56 marks in written examination
cannot be justified at all and it is not given to the Court
to alter the very method of selection and totally dispense
with viva voce in respect of a selection alone of the
candidates, for purposes of selection. On a careful and
overall consideration of the judgments of the learned
Single Judge and that of the Division Bench, we are of
the view that the decision of the learned Single Judge
cannot be considered to suffer any such serious infirmity
in law to call for our interference.
For all the reasons stated above, the appeals
fail and shall stand dismissed but with no costs.”
In my opinion, however, the above judgment is distinguishable.
In the present case, it is found that there is variation of 50% in the marks
allotted to the interview qua petitioner No.1 and 70% qua petitioner No.2.
Further, specific allegations have been levelled against respondents No.5
and 6 which have not been denied. The fact that petitioner No.1 has been
appointed as Anganwari Worker would not be a ground to dismiss the writ
petition qua petitioner No.2. The fact that even as per the official record
petitioner No.1 had higher marks but was still relegated to the position of
wait-listed (1) also clearly reveals the arbitrariness of the selection.
Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the selection of
C.W.P No. 4163 of 2007 ::5::
respondent No.7 to the post of Anganwari Worker of village Machhrouli,
Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat is set aside. The respondents are directed
to conduct fresh selection for the same.
No costs.
( AJAY TEWARI ) February 24, 2009. JUDGE `kk'