{"id":240527,"date":"2009-08-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009"},"modified":"2016-07-03T19:06:13","modified_gmt":"2016-07-03T13:36:13","slug":"ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ajay Kumar Verma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Ajay Kumar Verma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 August, 2009<\/div>\n
LPA No.111 of 2007, CWP No.17020 of 2006,\nCWP No.1815 of 2007, CWP No.11856 of 2007                         -1-\n\n\n\n            HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                        CHANDIGARH\n\n                                              Date of decision: August 7 , 2009\n                                            (1)\n                                     LPA No.111 of 2007\n\nAjay Kumar Verma                                              ...Petitioner\n                                            Vs.\nState of Haryana and others                                   ...Respondents<\/pre>\n
                                            *-*-*
\n                                           (2)<\/span>
\n                                 C.W.P.No. 17020 of 2006<\/p>\n
Sunil                                                         …Petitioner
\n                                            Vs.\n<\/p>\n
State of Haryana and others                                   ...Respondents\n\n                                            *-*-*\n                                           (3)<\/span>\n                                  C.W.P.No. 1815 of 2007\n\nHarun                                                         ...Petitioner\n                                            Vs.\nState of Haryana and others                                   ...Respondents\n\n                                            *-*-*\n                                           (4)<\/span>\n                                 C.W.P.No. 11856 of 2007\n\nDharambir                                                     ...Petitioner\n                                            Vs.\nState of Haryana and others                                   ...Respondents\n\nPresent:         Mr. Rajiv Atam Ram, Senior Advocate with\n                 Mr. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate and\n                 Mr. Daman Dhir, Advocate\n                 for the Petitioner in LPA No.111 of 2007\n\n                 Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in\n                 CWP Nos.1815 of 2007 & CWP No.17020 of 2006\n\n                 Mr. G.K. Khanna, Advocate\n                 for the petitioner in CWP No.11856 of 2007\n\n<\/pre>\n
                 Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana<\/p>\n
                 Mr. R.N. Raina, Advocate for respondent No.2<\/p>\n
                                            *-*-*
\n LPA No.111 of 2007, CWP No.17020 of 2006,
\nCWP No.1815 of 2007, CWP No.11856 of 2007                     -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
\n       HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA<\/p>\n
          1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
\n                 the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
          2.     To be referred to the Reporters or not ?\n<\/p>\n
          3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?<\/p>\n
T.S.Thakur, C.J.\n<\/p>\n
                 Common questions arise for consideration in this Letters<\/p>\n
Patent Appeal and in the accompanying writ petitions which were heard<\/p>\n
together and shall stand disposed of by this common order.<\/p>\n
                 Letters Patent Appeal No.111 of 2007 arises out of an order<\/p>\n
dated 27.04.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby<\/p>\n
Petition No.13557 of 2006 filed by the appellant has been dismissed, and<\/p>\n
the challenge to the validity of Rules 7(2) and 8 of the Punjab Civil Services<\/p>\n
(Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 as applicable to the State of Haryana<\/p>\n
repelled.       The prayer for a Mandamus directing the respondents to<\/p>\n
consider the claims of the petitioner for appointment to the Haryana Civil<\/p>\n
Services (Judicial Branch) by conducting a viva voce test and assessing<\/p>\n
his merit on that basis was also declined, as was the prayer for a direction<\/p>\n
to the respondents to frame rules similar to the one’s prevalent in the State<\/p>\n
of Punjab for recruitment to the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch).<\/p>\n
                   Petitioner in Writ Petition No.13557 of 2006 belongs to<\/p>\n
Backward Class category, who was enrolled as an Advocate in the year<\/p>\n
2001. Pursuant to an advertisement issued for filling up of thirty one posts<\/p>\n
in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) four out of which were<\/p>\n
reserved for Backward Class candidates, the petitioner appeared in the<\/p>\n
written test, the result whereof published on 20th May, 2006, declared only<\/p>\n
39 candidates to have qualified in the said test. In due course when the<\/p>\n
petitioner received a detailed marks sheet, it dawned upon him that he had
\n LPA No.111 of 2007, CWP No.17020 of 2006,
\nCWP No.1815 of 2007, CWP No.11856 of 2007                             -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
obtained only 434 marks out of a total of 900 which came to just about<\/p>\n
48.22% of the total. This meant that he did not qualify for being invited for<\/p>\n
interview\/viva voce, as Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch)<\/p>\n
Rules, 1951 in its application to the State of Haryana required a candidate<\/p>\n
to obtain at least 50% marks in the aggregate of all the written papers and<\/p>\n
33% marks in the language paper before he could be so invited.<\/p>\n
                 The petitioner’s case was that as per the unamended Rules,<\/p>\n
the cut-off percentage applicable to candidates belonging to the reserved<\/p>\n
categories including Backward Classes for being called for viva voce test<\/p>\n
was only 45% in the aggregate of all written papers and 33% in Hindi. Rule<\/p>\n
8 of the said Rules, however, required the candidates to obtain at least<\/p>\n
50% marks in the aggregate in all papers including viva voce to be eligible<\/p>\n
for appointment. The petitioner asserted that a combined reading of Rules<\/p>\n
7 and 8 of the Rules mentioned above, brought out a conflict between the<\/p>\n
said two rules inasmuch as a person who had obtained 48.22% marks and<\/p>\n
had a chance of making up the deficiency of marks in the written test by<\/p>\n
getting higher marks in the viva voce test was considered to be ineligible<\/p>\n
for viva voce. On account of what the petitioner described as an anomaly<\/p>\n
in the Rules, only two persons were appointed, as against 4 posts reserved<\/p>\n
for Backward Class candidates.\n<\/p>\n
                 The petitioners’ further case was that in the State of Punjab,<\/p>\n
the qualifying percentage of marks for being invited to appear in the viva<\/p>\n
voce test is 45% unlike in the State of Haryana where a higher percentage<\/p>\n
of 50% has been stipulated.                 The result is that in the State of Punjab<\/p>\n
candidates who do not possess 50% marks in the aggregate of written<\/p>\n
examination have been recommended for appointment. Relying upon the<\/p>\n
provisions of Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, the<\/p>\n
petitioner argued before the ld. Single Judge that the stipulation of a<\/p>\n
uniform percentage of marks for general category candidates and those
\n LPA No.111 of 2007, CWP No.17020 of 2006,
\nCWP No.1815 of 2007, CWP No.11856 of 2007                        -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
belonging to reserved categories as a condition of eligibility for being<\/p>\n
invited to the viva voce test was not justified apart from the same being<\/p>\n
opposed to the spirit of the constitutional guarantees contained in the said<\/p>\n
provisions. It was contended that inasmuch as Rule 7 and 8 of the Rules<\/p>\n
as applicable to the State of Haryana equated members of the Backward<\/p>\n
classes with those belonging to the General Category, the same were<\/p>\n
unconstitutional hence liable to be struck down.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 The writ petition was heard and finally dismissed by a learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge of this Court in terms of the order impugned in this appeal.<\/p>\n
The learned Single Judge was of the view that the petitioner was not<\/p>\n
entitled to question the validity of the Recruitment Rules after he had<\/p>\n
appeared in the competitive examination held in terms of the said Rules.<\/p>\n
The learned Single Judge also held that even if the standards prescribed<\/p>\n
by the States of Punjab and Haryana for inviting candidates for interview<\/p>\n
were different the same did not constitute discrimination offensive to Article<\/p>\n
14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court further took the view that the<\/p>\n
provision contained in the earlier Rules that prescribed 45% marks in the<\/p>\n
aggregate for being called for viva voce test had been amended by the<\/p>\n
rule-making authority to stipulate 50% marks in consultation with the High<\/p>\n
Court of Punjab and Haryana.                While doing so the High Court had,<\/p>\n
observed the learned Single Judge, taken into consideration all the<\/p>\n
relevant aspects, which cannot be found fault with. The petitioner-appellant<\/p>\n
has in the present appeal assailed the view taken by the learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 In the accompanying Writ Petition No.17020 of 2006 also, the<\/p>\n
petitioner was a candidate in the competitive examination mentioned<\/p>\n
earlier and was declared unsuccessful and ineligible for being called for
\n LPA No.111 of 2007, CWP No.17020 of 2006,
\nCWP No.1815 of 2007, CWP No.11856 of 2007                    -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
interview as he had obtained only 47% marks as against 50% required for<\/p>\n
being declared eligible. The challenge to the provisions of Rules governing<\/p>\n
the selection process to the extent the same prescribed 50% marks in the<\/p>\n
aggregate as a condition of eligibility for being invited to appear in the<\/p>\n
interview proceeds on a similar reasoning as was urged by the appellant in<\/p>\n
LPA No.111 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 To the same effect is the grievance of the petitioner in WP<\/p>\n
No.1815 of 2007 who also appeared in the competitive examination but did<\/p>\n
not qualify for being invited for interview against the Backward Class<\/p>\n
vacancies since he did not have 50% qualifying marks for being invited for<\/p>\n
such interview.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 The case of the petitioner in WP No.11856 of 2007 has also<\/p>\n
been filed in a similar backdrop with the only difference that the petitioner<\/p>\n
in the said petition was a candidate for appointment against a post<\/p>\n
reserved for Ex-servicemen but was unable to obtain the qualifying<\/p>\n
percentage of marks necessary for being invited to appear for the<\/p>\n
interview. The petitioner’s case in this petition also proceeds on somewhat<\/p>\n
similar reasoning that the rules ought to have made a suitable concession<\/p>\n
for candidates belonging to Ex-servicemen category in the matter of<\/p>\n
eligibility to appear in the viva voce examination.<\/p>\n
                 On behalf of the appellant in LPA No.111 of 2007 and the<\/p>\n
petitioners in the connected writ petitions, it was strenuously argued by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for them that Rules 7 and 8 of the Punjab Civil<\/p>\n
Services (Judicial Branch) Rules as applicable to the State of Haryana<\/p>\n
were unconstitutional inasmuch as the said rules equated candidates<\/p>\n
belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward
\n LPA No.111 of 2007, CWP No.17020 of 2006,
\nCWP No.1815 of 2007, CWP No.11856 of 2007                       -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
Classes with those belonging to the General Category. It was contended<\/p>\n
that the Rules as applicable before the amendment introduced in the same<\/p>\n
stipulated a lower qualifying percentage of marks at 45% for being invited<\/p>\n
to appear in the interview. The amendment of the said rules by which the<\/p>\n
said percentage was raised to 50% and made applicable uniformly to all<\/p>\n
the candidates whether belonging to the General or reserved categories<\/p>\n
was against the spirit of constitutional promise contained in Article 15 and<\/p>\n
16 of the Constitution. It was according to the learned counsel necessary<\/p>\n
for the rule-making authority to keep in view the constitutional framework<\/p>\n
and the philosophy underlying Article 14, 15 and 16 while providing for<\/p>\n
recruitment from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward<\/p>\n
Classes who could not for historical reasons be treated as equal to the<\/p>\n
candidates belonging to the General Category in terms of their ability and<\/p>\n
qualification for public employment. The equation of General Category<\/p>\n
candidates with reserved category candidates would according to the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioners amount to treating ‘unequals as equals’<\/p>\n
which was another form of discrimination unacceptable under the<\/p>\n
constitutional framework. Heavy reliance in support of these submissions<\/p>\n
was placed by the learned counsel on the decision of the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Ram Bhagat and Another vs. State of Haryana and another (1997) 11 SCC<\/p>\n
417.
\n417 It was urged that the rule-making authority and so also the High Court<\/p>\n
had failed to keep in view the observations made by their Lordships in the<\/p>\n
said judgment thereby rendering the rules as amended legally infirm and<\/p>\n
invalid.\n<\/p>\n
                 On behalf of the respondents, it was per contra argued that the<\/p>\n
challenge to the validity of the recruitment Rules after the candidates had<\/p>\n
appeared in the competitive examination and taken a chance with the<\/p>\n
selection process was legally untenable.          It was not according to Mr.<\/p>\n
Randhir Singh appearing for the respondents open to a candidate to
\n LPA No.111 of 2007, CWP No.17020 of 2006,
\nCWP No.1815 of 2007, CWP No.11856 of 2007                        -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
approbate or reprobate by taking a chance for selection based on the<\/p>\n
competitive examination and challenge the rules and norms governing the<\/p>\n
said examination after he was declared unsuccessful. It was also argued<\/p>\n
by the respondents that the rule-making authority was free to stipulate a<\/p>\n
percentage of marks considered reasonable keeping in view the demands<\/p>\n
of efficiency of the judicial service and the need for giving representation to<\/p>\n
the weaker sections of the society. Inasmuch as the High Court had<\/p>\n
examined the matter at length and recommended stipulation of a higher<\/p>\n
percentage of marks as a condition of eligibility for being called for viva<\/p>\n
voce test, it had committed no constitutional impropriety that may call for<\/p>\n
any interference by this Court.             What standards would be reasonable<\/p>\n
having regard to the nature of the service to which recruitments have been<\/p>\n
made and the need for giving representation to the Scheduled Castes,<\/p>\n
Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class candidates was a matter on which<\/p>\n
the Court could not express any authoritative opinion as it was a matter<\/p>\n
that had to be left to be determined by the constitutional functionaries<\/p>\n
charged with the duty of framing the rules.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 We have given careful consideration to the submissions made<\/p>\n
by the learned counsel and perused the record. It is common ground that<\/p>\n
the appellant in LPA No.111 of 2007 and the petitioners in the connected<\/p>\n
writ petitions were all candidates for appointment against the posts that<\/p>\n
were advertised and had appeared in the competitive examination held in<\/p>\n
accordance with the rules governing such selection and appointments.<\/p>\n
What to speak of mounting a challenge in proper proceeding before a<\/p>\n
competent court against the recruitment Rules, the petitioners did not make<\/p>\n
any murmur, lodge any protest or objection to the validity of the same<\/p>\n
before appearing in the competitive examination. There is no explanation<\/p>\n
much less a cogent one forthcoming for their silence in this regard. This
\n LPA No.111 of 2007, CWP No.17020 of 2006,
\nCWP No.1815 of 2007, CWP No.11856 of 2007                       -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
implies that the petitioners were satisfied with the stipulation of the<\/p>\n
conditions of eligibility not only for appearing in the competitive<\/p>\n
examination but also with the condition of eligibility stipulated for being<\/p>\n
invited for viva voce and for appointment as members of the Service. It<\/p>\n
also implies that the challenge to the validity of the rules comes belatedly<\/p>\n
after the petitioners had realized that they did not qualify for being<\/p>\n
appointed or for being invited for interview. Such being the case we find it<\/p>\n
difficult to entertain a challenge to the Rules after the game has been<\/p>\n
played according to the Rules published and made known before hand.<\/p>\n
                 Apart from estoppel by conduct, we are of the view that any<\/p>\n
interference with the Rules at this distant point of time on the ground of the<\/p>\n
same being invalid for any reason would create anomalous situations in<\/p>\n
which candidates who may be similarly situate and who may not have been<\/p>\n
invited for interview on account their marks being below 50% of the<\/p>\n
aggregate shall have to be invited and vacancies offered to them,            in<\/p>\n
disregard of the rights and the aspirations of those who may have in the<\/p>\n
intervening period become eligible for appearing in any competitive<\/p>\n
examination aimed at filling up the said posts.\n<\/p>\n
                 It is also noteworthy that after the competitive examination<\/p>\n
held in the year 2007, another examination was held against vacancies<\/p>\n
that were available in the general and reserved categories in the year<\/p>\n
2009. A large number of candidates had appeared in the said examination<\/p>\n
also, out of whom a handful of candidates only were selected, leaving the<\/p>\n
remaining vacancies unfilled which vacancies shall now be offered again in<\/p>\n
the fresh examination that may be held by the competent authority in<\/p>\n
accordance with the prevalent rules.\n<\/p>\n
                 Suffice it to say that any interference with the Rules at this<\/p>\n
stage is neither feasible nor judicially prudent, even assuming that the<\/p>\n
petitioners could maintain the present writ petitions after having taken their
\n LPA No.111 of 2007, CWP No.17020 of 2006,
\nCWP No.1815 of 2007, CWP No.11856 of 2007                           -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
chance with the Rules under challenge. The learned Single Judge was,<\/p>\n
therefore, justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant in<\/p>\n
LPA No.111 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
                 Having said that we may hasten to add that dismissal of these<\/p>\n
petitions would not prevent the competent authority from having a fresh<\/p>\n
look at the Rules keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in Ram Bhagat and Another vs. State of Haryana and another (1997)<\/p>\n
11 SCC 417. It is true that the amendment to the Rules by which the rule-<\/p>\n
making authority had reduced the percentage of marks required in the<\/p>\n
aggregate in all the papers including the viva voce test from 55% to 50%<\/p>\n
and stipulation of a higher percentage of marks required for appearing in<\/p>\n
the viva voce test uniformly for all the candidates including the Scheduled<\/p>\n
Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class candidates was made on the<\/p>\n
recommendations of the High Court. But it is equally true that the said<\/p>\n
amendment while granting the relief to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled<\/p>\n
Tribe and Backward Class candidates in terms of the percentage required<\/p>\n
for appointment had taken away from them, the advantage they enjoyed in<\/p>\n
terms of the lower percentage stipulated for being invited to interview. In<\/p>\n
the process the rule equated the reserved category candidates with those<\/p>\n
in the General Category.                    The petitioners have not assailed the<\/p>\n
amendment of the Rules in so far as the same reduced the percentage of<\/p>\n
marks stipulated as a condition of eligibility for appointment from 55% to<\/p>\n
50% as the said reduction is to their benefit no matter the same applies<\/p>\n
uniformly to all categories of candidates. What causes prejudice to the<\/p>\n
reserved category candidates, however, is the enhancement of the<\/p>\n
qualifying percentage of viva voce from 45% to 50%. The amendment has<\/p>\n
thus taken away from the reserved category by the left hand what was<\/p>\n
given to them by the right hand. Whether or not the rule-making authority<\/p>\n
ought to make a more favourable provision for SC\/ST and Backward Class
\n LPA No.111 of 2007, CWP No.17020 of 2006,
\nCWP No.1815 of 2007, CWP No.11856 of 2007                        – 10 –<\/span><\/p>\n
candidates in the matter of eligibility to appear in the viva voce examination<\/p>\n
and for appointment is, however, a matter on which the Rules brought on<\/p>\n
the Statute Book need not be said to be a last word. We say so for two<\/p>\n
distinct reasons namely; (i) because the constitutional philosophy<\/p>\n
underlying Article 15(4) and 16(4) would not frown on any provision that<\/p>\n
may show a reasonable concession to the reserved category candidates in<\/p>\n
terms of lower conditions of eligibility in comparison to General Category<\/p>\n
candidates; and (ii) because the Selection Committee constituted to make<\/p>\n
selection for the Haryana Superior Judicial Service has formulated the<\/p>\n
following norms for the said service:\n<\/p>\n
                 “No candidate will be called for the viva voce unless he
\n                 obtains 40% marks in each paper and 50% marks (45% for the
\n                 SC\/BC category candidates, instead of 50%) in the aggregate.
\n                 Further, no candidate will be considered to have successfully
\n                 qualified the Haryana Superior Judicial Services Examination
\n                 unless he obtains 50% marks (45% marks for the SC\/BC
\n                 category candidates) in the aggregate out of the total marks
\n                 fixed for the written examination and viva voce. It is made
\n                 clear that merely having obtaining 50% marks (read 45% for
\n                 the SC\/BC category candidates) in the written examination will
\n                 not confer a right on a candidate to be called for the viva voce
\n                 and the High Court may short-list the candidates equal to 3
\n                 times the number of vacancies to be called for the viva voce.
\n                 It is also made clear that no candidate will get the right to be
\n                 appointed even if he obtains 50% marks (45% marks for the
\n                 SC\/BC category candidates) in the aggregate of the written
\n                 examination and viva voce.        However, candidates will be
\n                 appointed strictly in the order of merit (category wise) in which
\n                 they are placed after the result of written examination and viva
\n                 voce.      The advertisement\/notification will mention all these
\n                 facts.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 There is in our opinion no justification for the dichotomy<\/p>\n
evident from what is seen in (ii) above. If the reserved category candidates<\/p>\n
are treated eligible with 45% marks even for recruitment at a higher level,
\n LPA No.111 of 2007, CWP No.17020 of 2006,
\nCWP No.1815 of 2007, CWP No.11856 of 2007                        – 11 –<\/span><\/p>\n
there is no reason why the same should be denied when the candidates<\/p>\n
enter at a lower level as Civil Judges (Junior Division). Superadded to that<\/p>\n
is the fact that in the State of Punjab of which Haryana was till re-<\/p>\n
organization of the States a part, the condition of eligibility for appearance<\/p>\n
in the viva voce examination for Punjab Superior Judicial Service remains<\/p>\n
45% only. This is evident from the minutes of the meeting of Selection<\/p>\n
Committee constituted for making selection to the said service dated<\/p>\n
23.01.2008 for the State of Punjab, which reads:\n<\/p>\n
                 “There shall be a recital in the advertisement that no candidate
\n                 may be called for viva voce unless he\/she obtains 40% marks
\n                 in each paper and 50% marks (45% for the SC\/BC category
\n                 candidates, instead of 50%) in the aggregate. Further, no
\n                 candidate may be considered to have successfully qualified
\n                 the Punjab Superior Judicial Services Examination unless he
\n                 obtains 50% marks (45% marks for the SC\/BC category
\n                 candidates) in the aggregate out of the total marks fixed for the
\n                 written examination and viva voce. It may be made clear that
\n                 merely having obtaining 50% marks (read 45% for the SC\/BC
\n                 category candidates) in the written examination will not confer
\n                 a right on a candidate to be called for the viva voce and the
\n                 High Court may short-list the candidates equal to 3 times the
\n                 number of vacancies to be called for the viva voce. It may
\n                 also made clear that no candidate will get the right to be
\n                 appointed even if he obtains 50% marks (45% marks for the
\n                 SC\/BC category candidates) in the aggregate of the written
\n                 examination and viva voce. However, candidates will be
\n                 appointed strictly in the order of merit (category wise) in which
\n                 they are placed after the result of written examination and viva
\n                 voce.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Two different standards being prescribed in two States served<\/p>\n
by the very same High Court need to be reconciled and a uniform approach<\/p>\n
adopted. We say so because the difference in the standards prescribed<\/p>\n
does not appear to be based on any conscious decision about the need for<\/p>\n
making a differentiation. It is not as though the High Court of Punjab and
\n LPA No.111 of 2007, CWP No.17020 of 2006,
\nCWP No.1815 of 2007, CWP No.11856 of 2007                           – 12 –<\/span><\/p>\n
Haryana when consulted qua the State of Punjab considers 45% marks in<\/p>\n
the aggregate as sufficient for appearance in the viva voce examination but<\/p>\n
insists on a higher percentage when it comes to dealing with Haryana. It is<\/p>\n
also not as though there is any difference in the human resource available<\/p>\n
in the two States or the representation of the Scheduled Castes,<\/p>\n
Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes in the services in the same that<\/p>\n
has inspired this dichotomy.                In our view it may only be because the<\/p>\n
dichotomy has gone unnoticed at the appropriate level. We, therefore,<\/p>\n
consider this to be a fit case in which the High Court ought to consider on<\/p>\n
the administrative side the desirability of reviewing the relevant rules and<\/p>\n
making necessary amendments wherever the same are found just and<\/p>\n
reasonable.        This can be done not only in relation to Schedule Caste,<\/p>\n
Schedule Tribe and Backward Class candidates, but even in relation to<\/p>\n
other reserved category candidates like ex-servicemen etc. We need only<\/p>\n
extract for the consideration of the rule-making authority and the High<\/p>\n
Court on the administrative side, the following passage from the decision of<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Ram Bhagat Singh’s case (supra):-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                          “We are conscious that high efficiency is required<\/p>\n
                          because the recruitment is in the judicial branch, that is<\/p>\n
                          to say, for prospective judicial officers who will be in<\/p>\n
                          charge of administration of justice in the country. But at<\/p>\n
                          the same time, if possible, in order to ensure that there<\/p>\n
                          is equality of opportunity, a percentage should be fixed<\/p>\n
                          without, in any way, compromising with the efficiency<\/p>\n
                          required for the job which will be attainable by backward<\/p>\n
                          communities, that is to say, Scheduled Castes and<\/p>\n
                          Scheduled Tribes. Unless such a percentage is fixed on<\/p>\n
                          the aforesaid basis and a percentage is fixed for
\n LPA No.111 of 2007, CWP No.17020 of 2006,
\nCWP No.1815 of 2007, CWP No.11856 of 2007                        – 13 –<\/span><\/p>\n
                          qualification which would normally be unattainable by<\/p>\n
                          the     Scheduled    Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes<\/p>\n
                          determined on an objective basis, it would not be<\/p>\n
                          possible to ensure equality of opportunity. Both Shri<\/p>\n
                          Mahabir Singh and Shri Nayar have urged that the<\/p>\n
                          minimum must be presumed to have been so fixed in<\/p>\n
                          the Haryana Service. However, that fact is not apparent<\/p>\n
                          and there is nothing on record to indicate that this<\/p>\n
                          percentage was fixed deliberately on an analysis and<\/p>\n
                          careful examination and determination on the lines and<\/p>\n
                          the principles indicated above.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 In the result LPA No.111 of 2007, CWP No.17020 of 2006,<\/p>\n
CWP No.1815 of 2007 and CWP No.11856 of 2007 fail and are hereby<\/p>\n
dismissed. A copy of this order shall however be placed before the Chief<\/p>\n
Justice for appropriate orders on the administrative side, regarding a<\/p>\n
possible re-look at the rules, keeping in view the observations made in the<\/p>\n
body of this order. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   (T.S. THAKUR)
\n                                                   CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                                            (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
\n                                                       JUDGE
\nAugust 7, 2009
\n‘shonkar’\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Ajay Kumar Verma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 August, 2009 LPA No.111 of 2007, CWP No.17020 of 2006, CWP No.1815 of 2007, CWP No.11856 of 2007 -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: August 7 , 2009 (1) LPA No.111 of 2007 Ajay Kumar […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-240527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAjay Kumar Verma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ajay Kumar Verma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-03T13:36:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ajay Kumar Verma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-03T13:36:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3889,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Ajay Kumar Verma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-03T13:36:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ajay Kumar Verma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ajay Kumar Verma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ajay Kumar Verma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-03T13:36:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ajay Kumar Verma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-03T13:36:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009"},"wordCount":3889,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009","name":"Ajay Kumar Verma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-03T13:36:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-verma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ajay Kumar Verma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240527","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=240527"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240527\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}