Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devender Sheokand vs The Haryana Vidhan Sabha And Others on 22 January, 2013
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009
Date of Decision:- 22.01.2013
Devender Sheokand ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
The Haryana Vidhan Sabha and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.Bhoop Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Vijay Dahiya, Advocate,
for respondents No.4 to 7, 9, 11, 13 to 16.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Challenge in this writ petition is to the selection of respondents No.4 to 19 on the post of Clerks being illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and contrary to the process of law. Names of respondents No.17 to 19 were deleted from the array of respondents vide order dated 26.3.2010 passed in Civil Miscellaneous No.3738 of 2010.
Briefly, the facts are that the Secretary, Haryana Vidhan Sabha, Chandigarh, initially advertised 11 posts of Clerks along with other posts for filling up the same vide advertisement dated 1.6.2008. This advertisement was withdrawn by the respondents and the said C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -2- withdrawal was advertised in the newspapers on 3.6.2008. A fresh advertisement for filling up 13 posts of Clerks along with other posts was published in various newspapers on 10.8.2008. The qualification prescribed for the post of Clerk was that a candidate should possess the qualification of Matric First Division/Higher Secondary Second Division/Intermediate Second Division/10+2 (Vocational) Second Division/Graduate of a recognized University or its equivalent. For Ex- servicemen, the qualification was Matric or 15 years' service in the Army and Army Certificate Class I with knowledge of Hindi upto Matric and speed of 30 words per minute in English Typewriting or 25 words in Hindi/Punjabi typewriting.
Since the petitioner fulfilled the said qualifications and was fully eligible, applied for the post of Clerk. He received interview letter which was fixed for 20.10.2008 (Annexure P-3). A Committee of two officers i.e. Deputy-I Secretary and Under Secretary-III, Haryana Vidhan Sabha (Respondents No.2 and 3) was constituted by the Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha-respondent No.20 to interview and select the candidates. No criteria was fixed for awarding the marks for the interview. Petitioner appeared for the interview on the date fixed before respondents No.2 and 3 and was quite hopeful of his selection as he had fared well in the interview. Result of the selection was declared on 1.12.2008. Names of Respondents No.4 to 16 were recommended for the post of Clerks while the names of respondents No.17 to 19 were recommended to be kept in the waiting list for six months. The appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates, who are respondents No.4 to 16 and were working on 89 days' C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -3- basis in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha Secretariat and they joined the said posts.
Petitioner applied for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide letter dated 4.5.2009 so as to obtain the details of the interview result which was supplied to him vide letter dated 11.5.2009, photocopy of the same is appended as Annexure P-4. There are large scale cuttings in the marks assigned to the candidates in the interview and based on this information, which was supplied to the petitioner, he has approached this Court challenging the selection and appointment of respondents No.4 to 16 being arbitrary, illegal, mala fide and not in consonance with law.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier advertisement dated 1.6.2008, which was cancelled subsequently, was so done solely with the intention to accommodate all the ad hoc Clerks, who were appointed and were working on 89 days' basis in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. In the advertisement dated 1.6.2008, only 11 posts of Clerks were advertised and since 13 Clerks on 89 days' basis were working, the earlier advertisement was withdrawn with an intention to accommodate all the 13 Clerks. The selection process was a mere farce as the same was only an eye-wash to accommodate the Clerks, who were working on 89 days' basis with the Vidhan Sabha. No criteria was laid down by the Selection Committee for selection of the candidates and no weightage to the educational qualifications, experience, typing speed etc. had been given at the time of selection. The interview was merely a formality as within a span of three and a half hours, 85 to 90 candidates were interviewed for the various C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -4- posts, which were advertised vide advertisement No.2 of 2008 which included 13 posts of Clerks. Hardly three minutes were given to each candidate during the interview process. Apart from scanning through the original documents of the candidates, two questions were asked from the candidates; first as to the place from which they belong and the second as to who was the MLA of their constituency, which were answered by the petitioner correctly and he has been awarded only 13 ½ marks in the interview. Petitioner had also applied for the post of Committee Officer and was interviewed by the same Committee as there was only one Committee appointed by the Speaker of the Vidhan Sabha for interviewing all the candidates for different posts. In the said interview, the petitioner has been awarded 27 marks out of 50, which was also held on the same day. He further contends that tampering has been done with the marks, which were awarded at the time of interview, by respondents No.2 and 3 with an intention to oust all other candidates except those who were working on ad hoc basis with the Vidhan Sabha as Clerks i.e. respondents No.4 to 16. He, on this basis, contends that the selection of respondents No.4 to 16 cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside as the same is in total violation of the principles as laid down by the various judgments passed by the Courts. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia etc. vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 487 and the judgments of this Court in the cases of Sham Lal vs. Union of India, 1995(1) RSJ 571 and Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh and others, 1996 (2) RSJ 235.
C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -5-
Separate replies have been filed by respondents No.1, 2 and 3. The stand taken by the respondents with regard to the withdrawal of the earlier advertisement dated 1.6.2008 vide which 11 posts of Clerks were advertised is that there were some administrative reasons because of which the competent Authority i.e. the Speaker directed withdrawal of advertisement No.1 of 2008 and such withdrawal was published on 3.6.2008. The factum of the subsequent advertisement No.2 of 2008 published for filling up 13 posts of Clerks along with other posts stands admitted and it has been stated that out of the candidates who had applied for the post of Clerks, 60 eligible candidates were called for interview on 20th October, 2008 and 46 candidates appeared before the Interview Committee on the date fixed. The factum that respondents No.4 to 16 were working on 89 days' basis in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha Secretariat stands admitted, however, it is submitted that their names were duly recommended by the Selection Committee and the Selection Committee, in the absence of the Statutory Rules, framed its own criteria and assessed the overall performance of the candidates accordingly and recommended the selection of the candidates on merit. Interview was exclusive test for assessing the caliber of the candidates and the candidates who fared well in the same were recommended for selection on the basis of their performance and there is no illegality in awarding the marks to the respective candidates. The factum of cutting in the marks given to the candidates at the time of interview has been admitted however, it is stated that this process was resorted to on the basis of the performance of the candidates. There was no cutting in the marks granted to the un-selected candidates and the cuttings C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -6- which have been resorted to does not change the result as the merit of selected candidates only has been altered without affecting the un-selected candidates.
Reply filed by respondents No.2 and 3 is on same lines except that they have further elaborated the criteria which was followed by the Committee for assessing the suitability of the candidates. It has been asserted that so far as the criteria for awarding the marks in the interview is concerned, the same were awarded on the performance of the each candidate at the time of interview and no specific criteria was prepared. The sole basis for granting marks was on the basis of their overall performance as the candidates were asked different questions on different problems and the issues relating to their duties. After assessing overall performance of all the candidates, result was prepared on the basis of merit. Result sheet is appended as Annexure R-2/2 (photocopy of which is Annexure P-4 attached by petitioner) in which marks awarded to each candidate are mentioned. It has been stated that this result sheet was prepared by hand by respondents No.2 and 3 and some modifications in marks of some selected candidates were made there and then after assessing the overall performance of the respective candidates in the interview. These modifications pertained to candidates at Sr.No.1, 8, 20, 26, 21, 36, 39 and 44. Minor change due to reduction in marks of selected candidates does not materially affect the merit list and name of the petitioner is at Sr.No.12 of this list does not fall within the zone of selection as he is no where near to the lowest selected candidate in merit. Petitioner obtained 13 ½ marks out of 50 marks whereas the last candidate who has C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -7- been recommended to be placed in the waiting list has obtained 15 ½ marks out of 50 marks.
In para 11 of the written statement, it has been stated that besides educational qualifications, due weightage was given to the performance of candidates in respect of general knowledge, personality and suitability. In the absence of specific rules, it was not necessary to allocate/assign marks for separate heads assessing for different qualities rather all the candidates were awarded marks on the basis of their suitability to the post in question and not on the basis of their academic career nor on the basis of excellence in worldly affairs as they were being considered for selection to the post of Clerk only. It has been stated qua candidate Shamsher Singh at Sr.No.43 that he has been inadvertently shown twice in the list due to change of page and has been assigned 10 and 11 marks erroneously in the interview which does not materially affect the selection of the merit list. Had there been any mala fide intention in preparation of the result, a fresh interview result would have been prepared/typed instead of the present hand written result. The over-writing and cutting simultaneously appeared in the result sheet is only the result of human error and not intentional or with a motive to change the result or to materially affect the merit of any candidate. On the basis of these pleadings, it has been asserted that the writ petition is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
It would not be out of way to mention here that there is no denial to the fact that interview to different posts, which were advertised, was held on 20.10.2008 when total 85 to 90 candidates for different posts C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -8- were interviewed within a span of three and a half hours. There is also no denial to the assertion made by the petitioner that only 2 questions were asked to the petitioner by the Committee i.e. about the place to which he belongs and the name of the MLA of his constituency.
Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 and 20 asserted that no mala fides have been alleged against the Selection Committee and in the absence of such allegations and non-substantiation of the same, Court, in the light of the fact that there was no Statutory Rules/instructions prescribing the criteria to be followed by the Selection Committee, cannot sit in appeal on the selection made by the duly constituted Selection Committee by the Competent Authority. There is no violation of any Statutory Rule as the Selection Committee has exercised the discretion which has been given to it by basing the selection on the interview alone, therefore, it cannot be faulted with and the Court cannot examine the merit of each candidate and records its own opinion on their relative merit and proceed to set aside the selection made. In support of this contention, he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.V. Thimmaiah and others vs. Union Public Service Commission and others, (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 409.
His further contention is that the basic grievance of the petitioner to challenge the selection is that he is more qualified and has a better academic record. He has higher marks than the selected candidates but the same is not open to challenge as the Selection Committee has adopted its own criteria and proceeded to make selection accordingly. He states that once the petitioner has participated in the selection and C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -9- failed to make the grade, it is not open for him to now challenge the selection as the plea of estoppel would arise against him. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Jagmal vs. State of Haryana and others, 2007(1) SLR (Pb. & Hry.) 177.
Mr.R.K.Malik, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the selected candidates submits that merely because the Interview Committee had awarded marks in lump sum after separately evaluating the candidates on the basis of their qualifications and experience etc. would not vitiate the selection as there is no illegality in the procedure of overall evaluation of the candidates without fixing marks for each of the items adopted by the Selection Committee. In support of this contention, he places reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Gupta and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2000(4) RSJ 438. He contends that decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. Nothing has come on record, according to him, which would vitiate the selection made by the Committee and the said selection is in accordance with law. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke etc. etc. vs. Dr.B.S.Mahajan etc.etc., AIR 1990 Supreme Court 434. On the basis of the above submissions, dismissal of the writ petition has been prayed for being devoid of any merit.
C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -10-
I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
Taking first the assertion of the counsel for the respondents that there are no mala fides against the Selection Committee and there being no Statutory Rules prescribing the criteria for selection to be followed by the Committee, the selection cannot be said to be vitiated, cannot be accepted as there are specific allegations against the official respondents that earlier advertisement No.1/2008 dated 1.6.2008 wherein 11 posts of Clerks advertised was withdrawn and a fresh advertisement was issued for filling up 13 posts of Clerks which was intentionally done to accommodate the selected candidates i.e. Respondents No.4 to 16, who were already working on 89 days' basis with the Vidhan Sabha and the selection was merely a farce and an eye wash as the said exercise was done to regularize the back door appointments of respondents No.4 to 16. Reason for cancellation of earlier advertisement is stated to be administrative but no such reasons are spelt out from the records which have been produced for perusal of this Court. Although it has been denied that the earlier advertisement was withdrawn to accommodate the selected candidates by increasing the posts of Clerks from 11 to 13 yet it is admitted by the respondents that all these 13 selected candidates i.e. Respondents No.4 to 16 were working on 89 days' basis in the Vidhan Sabha as Clerks. It is also not denied that except for these 13 candidates, no other candidate from the candidates, who had applied for the post of Clerk, stands selected. The mala- fides of the official respondents are apparent from the records and stand proved and thus the selection of respondents No.4 to 16 cannot be C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -11- termed as overboard.
That apart, the basic qualification prescribed for a candidate to be eligible for appointment to the post of Clerk as advertised reads as follows:-
Sr. Nomenclature Number of Pay Scale of Qualification/Experience No. of the post post(s) the post Clerk Thirteen Rs.3050-4590 i) Matric Ist Division/Higher + Rs.40/- S.P. Secondary 2nd Division/ Intermediate 2nd Division/10+ 2 (Vocational) 2nd Division/Graduate of a recognized University or its equivalent.
For ex-servicemen:-
Matric or Fifteen years' service in the Army and Army certificate Class-I.
ii) Knowledge of Hindi upto Matric; and
iii) Speed of 30 w.p.m. in English typewriting or 25 w.p.m. in 7 Hindi/Punjabi typewriting.
A perusal of the above would show that apart from the educational qualifications which would prescribe a candidate to be eligible for appointment to the post of a Clerk is required to possess, typing skills and that too with a minimum speed prescribed was also mandated. No type test was held by the Selection Committee to assess as to whether the candidates possess the minimum prescribed typing speed or not. Rather the first step, prior to the interview for assessing the suitability of a candidate for appointment to the post of a Clerk should have been a typewriting test to check the speed, especially in the absence of a written test. A perusal of the application form which is available on record along with the advertisement would show that the candidates who had applied for the post of Clerk were required to give the speed of typewriting in C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -12- English/Hindi at column No.6 of the application form. In the absence of any standardized institute which would assess the speed of a candidate and certify the same, the criteria which is prescribed in the Statutory Rules for a candidate to be eligible for appointment to the post of Clerk stands vitiated in the absence of assessment of speed of typewriting. There can be no dispute with regard to the contention raised by the counsel for the respondents that in the absence of the Statutory Rules, the Selection Committee is competent to frame its own criteria before proceeding to select a candidate, however, the same has to be just and reasonable and should be based on rationale justification to assess the suitability of a candidate for the post of a Clerk. One of the requirements for a candidate to be suitable for appointment, as required, was possessing the typing speed, which aspect has been totally overlooked by the Selection Committee. Further, the Selection Committee has chosen to adopt the criteria for selection of the candidates which has been detailed in para 11 of the written statement filed by respondents No.2 and 3 which reads as follows:-
"11. xxxx xxxx Besides educational qualification due weightage was given to the performance of the respective candidates in respect of general knowledge, personality and suitability. In the absence of specific Rules it was not necessary to allocate/assign marks for separate heads assessing for different qualities. Rather all the candidates were awarded marks on the basis of their suitability to the post in question and not on the basis of their academic career C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -13- and not on the basis of their other excellence in worldly affairs as they were being selected for the post of Clerk only. The total marks awarded to each candidate have been mentioned in Annexure R-2/2 referred to in para 7."
A perusal of the above would show that the Committee decided to give weightage to the educational qualification, apart from the performance of the candidate in the interview in respect of general knowledge, personality and suitability. It has further been emphasized that their suitability was assessed for the post in question only and the marks were not awarded on the basis of their academic career or excellence in worldly affairs as they were being selected for the post of a Clerk only. No doubt, interview can be one of the modes of selecting a candidate but the resort to such a mode alone and that too for the post of a Clerk, as has been admitted by the Selection Committee and especially when the suitability of the candidate has to be assessed for the post of a Clerk for which essential qualification is possessing minimum typing speed and non-holding of the typing test for the said purpose, cannot be said to be in accordance with the statutory requirement for the post. The judgments, in the light of the above facts, relied upon by the counsel for the respondents, would not save the selection of respondents No.4 to 16 as the said judgments would not be applicable to the case in hand.
As per the facts pleaded, on 20.10.2008, Committee consisting of respondents No.2 and 3 interviewed various candidates for different posts i.e. (i) Public Relation Officer (1 post), (ii) Committee Officer (1-post) C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -14-
(iii) Reception Officer (1-post), (iv) Librarian (1-post), (v) Junior Scale Stenographer (1- post), (vi) Data Entry Officer (2-posts), (vii) Clerks (13 posts). The interview for the above posts is alleged to have commenced at 11.00 a.m. The Committee interviewed the candidates in the same sequence in which the posts were advertised i.e. firstly the candidates who were called for the post of Public Relations Officer, were interviewed followed by the interview to the posts of Reception Officer, Librarian, Junior Scale Stenographer, Data Entry Officer and lastly for the post of Clerks. In between the interview, there was a lunch break of about 30-40 minutes. By excluding this period of lunch break, the whole interview process by the Committee for various posts lasted for about 3 ½ hours during which period the Committee interviewed 85-90 candidates for various posts. In this short span of time, it is difficult to accept that the Committee would have, apart from taking the testimonials of the candidates, asked different questions on different problems to assess the overall performance of the candidates. Three and a half hours comes to 210 minutes and within this period, 85 to 90 candidates were interviewed by the Selection Committee. This would include the period within which the candidates were called upon to appear before the Committee and were interviewed also. Even if 80 candidates are taken to have been interviewed, each candidate, on an average, thus, was interviewed for less than 3 minutes. This reflects upon the speed at which the interviews were held by the Committee and it can very well be imagined as to how the Committee would have assessed the suitability of a candidate for the post merely on the basis of the performance of the interview. It has been asserted by the petitioner that simply two C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -15- questions were asked i.e. to which place he belongs to and who was the MLA of his constituency. The petitioner promptly replied to these two questions but was still awarded 13 ½ marks i.e. 5 ½ marks by respondents No.2 and 8 marks by respondent No.3 out of 25 marks each. The same Committee interviewed the petitioner for the post of Committee Officer on the same day i.e. 20.10.2008 and on the similar two questions asked to the petitioner, he was awarded 27 marks, 13 by respondent No.2 and 14 by respondent No.3, out of 25 marks each. It requires to be stated here that there is no denial to these assertions made by the petitioner in the replication which has been filed by him, by way of any affidavit or rejoinder by the respondents. The assertion of the petitioner that the selection process for the post of Clerk was merely an eye wash and intended to accommodate respondents No.4 to 16 as regular Clerks, who were already working on ad hoc/89 days' basis with the Vidhan Sabha appears to be correct. Reference can be made, at this stage, to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia (supra) wherein similar circumstances when there was a specific assertion by the petitioners that the interview did not last more than 2 to 3 minutes per candidate on an average and formal questions of parentage, residence of candidate and hardly any questions which has relevance to suitability of the candidate was asked, which assertion was not denied by the respondents by filing any affidavit was held as a good ground to vitiate the selection holding it to be arbitrary. Reference, at this stage, can also be made to a judgment passed by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Gupta's case (supra) wherein in para 16 it has been held as follows:-
C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -16-
"16. There, however, appears considerable substance in the grievance of the petitioner that when the interview was held in this case without any criteria and without there being any record to show evaluation of the performance of the candidates, who appeared in the interview, the merit list prepared on the basis of that interview deserves to be declared as illegal. Shri Rajiv Atma Ram very fairly conceded that respondent No.1 does not have any record showing as to how the performance of the candidates was judged/evaluated at the time of interview. He further submitted that there is no record to show that marks were awarded to the candidates at the time of interview or that there is anything on the record to show that the merit list was drawn on 5.5.1990 after taking note of the experience of the candidates or their past record. The original list which has been produced before the Court during the course of hearing also does not show the award of marks at the interview or any other document showing as to how the performance of the candidates had been evaluated by the interviewing authority. Hon'ble the Chief Justice while considering the representation of the petitioner on 1.5.1992 also noted that no record of interview has been kept and the merits of the candidates at the shorthand and typewriting test held on 31.3.1990 C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -17- was ignored. In the absence of indication of any criteria adopted for the purpose of making evaluation of the performance of the candidates at the interview and complete absence of any record showing that the interviewing authority had taken note of the experience and the past record of the candidates and had awarded marks to the candidates, there is no escape from the conclusion that the merit list prepared on 5.5.1992 suffers from arbitrariness. Denial of fair consideration to the petitioner at the time of selection has directly resulted in violation of fundamental right of equality in the matter relating to employment as guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution of India."
Another ground which creates doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the selection being unfair is the result sheet where there have been large number of cuttings on adjustment of marks of the candidates who had appeared for interview before the Selection Committee. Photocopy of the interview result has been appended as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition which has been supplied under the RTI Act, and a perusal of the same would show that there has been cutting/rewriting/over-writing in the marks of as many as eight candidates out of 46 candidates. The justification which has been put-forth by the respondents is that these modifications were made at the time of interview after assessing the overall performance in the interview. This fact is admitted by respondents No.2 and 3 (members of the Selection Committee) in para 7 of their replies filed to the writ petition. It C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -18- has been asserted that there is no material effect or impact on the merit of the petitioner as he does not figure anywhere near the select list. It needs to be mentioned here that candidate Avtar Kaur, whose name figures at Sr.No.1 of the result sheet has, as per the original marks assigned to her, obtained 17 ½ marks which would have placed her on 12th position along with Jagbir Singh placed at Sr.No.17 (respondent No.17) and would have resulted in ouster of Rakesh Kumar (respondent No.16), whose name figures at Sr.No.33 and had secured 17 marks but has now been placed at Sr.No.13th in the merit list by reducing the marks of Avtar Kaur from 17 ½ to 16 ½ marks and she has been ousted from the select list. This proves the false assertion of the respondents that the cuttings have not made any material difference in the select list. It further fortifies the fact that the selection was made with an intention to adjust the already working ad hoc/89 days' basis Clerks with the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. The factum that all these 13 selected and appointed candidates were working with the respondents stands admitted by the respondents in their reply filed. The selection, therefore, cannot sustain and stands vitiated.
Reference, at this stage, needs to be made to the judgment passed by this Court in Sham Lal's case (supra) where the Court has observed in para 13 as follows:-
"13. It is true that this Court does not normally interfere with the selections made by duly constituted Body. The Rule in this behalf was reiterated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dalpat Abasaheb's case (supra). However, it is equally settled that this court in the exercise of its extra- C.W.P.No.10042 of 2009 -19- ordinary jurisdiction, is bound to "reach injustice wherever it occurs". It is bound to ensure that the rights guaranteed to a citizen by the Constitution and the laws of this land, are not violated. It is the responsibility of this Court to ensure that no action of the State or any of its Instrumentalities is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Whenever, a citizen complains that the action of the State is violative of Article 14 and demonstrates that it is discriminatory or that it is unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary, the court cannot be a helpless and silent spectator. It is bound to intervene. The law in this behalf appears to be settled."
This was a similar case as the present one where alterations were made in the marks awarded to the candidates during the course of interview and the Court, on the basis of such alterations in the marks as in the present case, proceeded to set aside the selection.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. Selection and appointment of respondents No.4 to 16 as Clerks in pursuance to advertisement No.2/2008 in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha, Chandigarh is hereby quashed. Direction is issued to the respondents to hold fresh selection to the post of Clerks in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Original records be returned to Mr.D.S.Nalwa, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
January 22nd , 2013 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE