Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harvinder Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 May, 2022
Author: Arun Monga
Bench: Arun Monga
247 (3 cases)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Reserved on : 20.05.2022
Pronounced on : 31.05.2022
1) CWP No.6025 of 2014 (O&M)
Harvinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
2) CWP No.17751 of 2016 (O&M)
Harvinder Singh Nain ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
3) CWP No.10411 of 2015 (O&M)
Lalit Vashistha ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present : Mr. Vijay K. Jindal, Advocate,
Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate,
Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, D.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. N.R. Dahiya, Advocate
for respondents No.5 to 32 (in CWP-6025-2014)
for respondents No.5 to 31 (in CWP-10411-2015)
****
1 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 :::
CWP-6025-2014
ARUN MONGA, J.
Above titled bunch of 3 petitions is being disposed of vide common order since facts as well as issues involved therein are similar.
I) CWP-6025-2014 (O&M)
1. Petitioner, having unsuccessfully participated in the selection process, claiming himself to be a better achiever than the selected ones, asserting that he is an ex ace cricketer/sportsman, is before this court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing appointment of respondents No.5 to 33 on the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail.
2. Succinct factual narrative first.
2.1. Some of the cricketing achievements of the petitioner in sports are as below:-
Sr.No. Date Details of Achievement
i) 23.06.2007 Panchkula District Cricket Association
awarded him a certificate for participating in the Haryana State Inter District (under
15) Cricket Tournament conducted by Haryana Cricket Association (Affiliated to Board of Control for Cricket in India) during the year 2000-2001 (Annexure P-
3/1).
ii) 2007-2008 Represented Panchkula District in
Haryana State Inter District (under 22)
Cricket Championship 2007-2008
conducted by Haryana Cricket
Association, Bhiwani (Annexure P-3/2).
iii) 21.12.2007 to Participated as a player in the first North
23.12.2007 India 15-15 Cricket Championship (Sr.
Boys) from 21.12.2007 to 23.12.2007 held
at Dronacharya Stadium Kurukshetra,
Haryana. His team position attained 3rd
place (Annexure P-3/3)
Page 2 of 21
2 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 :::
CWP-6025-2014
2.2. Respondent No.3-Haryana Staff Selection Commission
advertised 29 posts of Assistant Superintendent Jail. 12 posts were kept for General Category and 17 posts for Reserved Category. 2.3. After undergoing the requisite physical test in respect of height and chest etc., petitioner was found eligible and was interviewed on 22.09.2012 by Respondent No.4, one Member of the Commission. He was awarded 10 marks out of 25 in viva-voce, 23.06 marks out of 50 for educational qualification. Thus, petitioner scored just 33.06 marks out of 75, as against much higher marks of the selected candidates of General Category which are as under:-
Sr.No. Roll No. Total marks out of
75 marks
i) 0163 47.40
ii) 0183 45.10
iii) 0657 45.88
iv) 1136 45.84
v) 01749 46.76
vi) 2861 47.08
vii) 3085 45.92
viii) 3106 47.06
ix) 3767 (BCB) 36.87
(Unselected
Candidate)
x) 3815 46.08
xi) 4003 44.11
xii) 2861 47.08
It is thus borne out that unsuccessful petitioner having got 33.06 marks as against the last selected candidate who secured 44.11 marks has challenged the entire selection process through the instant writ proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would first and foremost argue that selection is contrary to service rules as applicable herein. Preference had Page 3 of 21 3 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014 to be given to the petitioner under sportsman quota. Furthermore, instead of qualifications mentioned for the post of Assistant Superintendent, the Commission had mentioned the qualifications meant for the post of Senior Assistant Superintendent in the impugned advertisement (Annexure P-5). He also relied upon the official notings of the respondent department showing that officials themselves accepted that the advertisement issued by the HSSC for the posts was not in accordance with the Note-2 of Rule 7 of 1963 Rules.
4. Secondly, he would then argue that method of conducting viva- voce while awarding 25 marks was against the 1963 Rules as criteria has been laid down in the said Rules.
5. Thirdly, he urged that out of total29 posts,only 12 were kept for General Category and 17 were reserved for other Categories amounting to reservation of more than 50% which is against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Sahwney etc. vs. Union of India, 1993(1) SCT 448.
6. Fourthly, he was rather over emphatic that action of the respondents in destroying the original record of selection despite repeated orders of court to produce the same shows mala fide on their part.
7. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner would canvass that posts of Assistant Superintendent are still lying vacant and the petitioner deserves to be considered against a vacant post left unfilled due to non-joining of respondent No.20.
8. Per Contra, Ms. Shruti Jain, learned State Counselsubmitted that Rule 7 of 1963Service Rules only contemplates 'preference' to sportsperson which is to be given only when all other things are equal. She would point Page 4 of 21 4 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014 out that having scored meager 33.06 marks as against the last selected candidate who scored 44.11 marks in General Category, petitioner has no legs to stand or claim any right on the post in question.
9. She would then argue that the Commission formed the criteria for selection in advance, on the last date for submission of application forms i.e. 13.09.2010 (Annexure R-3/1) i.e. well before issuance of notice for public measurement on 17.03.2012. As regards the power of the Commission to frame a criteria in the absence of any statutory rules or executive instructions to assign marks to higher qualifications and other related facets, learned State Counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Pearl Sidhu vs State of Punjab, 2014 (11) R.C.R. (Civil) 221, wherein in para No.28 it was observed as follows:-
"28. It is by now settled by various judicial verdicts that the recruiting agency can evolve its own criteria for selection in the absence of any statutory mandate, limiting such criteria. If the process of selection and the criteria is provided under the statutory Rules, the same cannot be deviated from by the recruiting authority. No statutory Rules/Instructions has been referred to by the petitioners which would prescribe a criteria for selection or shortlisting of the candidates. In the absence of the same, the discretion is that of the Commission to evolve its own process of shortlisting and devise its own method for the same. The power of judicial review, no doubt is available to the Court, but that jurisdiction is limited and the Court can only interfere with such decision of the recruiting/appointing authority if the same was illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or was irrational and that too to the extent that it was in outrageous defiance of logic or moral standards. Interference by the Court would also be permissible in case such a decision is totally arbitrary, unjust and based on mala fides. If these traits are absent, the Court would not interfere in the exercise of discretion by the competent authority in laying down the procedure and criteria for selection."Page 5 of 21
5 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014
10. In respect of the averment that reservation is more than 50%, learned State Counsel argued that in the case in hand reservation is not more than 50% as is evident from the break-up of posts given in the advertisement.
11. With regard to non-production of certain record/documents before the Court, shecountered that record of the Commission was weeded out in accordance with applicable procedure as per resolutions dated 27.07.1992 (Annexure R-3/6) and 01.10.1994 (Annexure R-3/7). She urged that reliance may be had on office notings (Annexures R-3/1 to R-3/5) showing that the record which were preserved by the Commission i.e. Selection List, Result Sheet and Recommendations were produced before the Court whenever its production was directed.
12. Further she would submit that writ petition is essentially based on office notings and the opinion of the Advocate General, Haryana, without laying any challenge to the impugned speaking order and that the said notings do not have any legal sanctity, and on the basis thereof petitioner's claim cannot be accepted.
13. Having hereinabove noted the rival contentions of the learned counsels, I shall now proceed to deal with the same and record my discussion and outcome thereof.
14. In fact, before adverting to the competing arguments, it is pertinent to mention here that petition in hand is neither any sort of a public interest litigation nor is there any prayer for Quo Warranto qua the continuation of the private respondents, who have been selected, as would be borne out from the prayer clause which is reproduced herein below:- Page 6 of 21
6 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014 "(i). A writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari quashing the appointments of Respondents No.5 to 33 on the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail which have been made without following the Punjab Jails Department State Service (Class III Executive) Rules, 1963 as applicable to Haryana in defiance of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution;
(ii). A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to fill the posts of Assistant Superintendent Jails after strictly following the procedure prescribed under the Punjab Jails Department State Service (Class III Executive) Rules, 1963 as applicable to Haryana particularly Note 2 given under Rule 7;"
15. A perusal of above reflects that on one hand petitioner seeks quashing of private respondents' appointment and on the other, merely a writ of mandamus is being sought directing the respondents to conduct fresh selections. To be noted that, there is no personal relief sought by the petitioner. Though of course during pendency of the writ proceedings vide a subsequent office order dated 20.05.2016,matter was re-considered, all over again,from all angles and after review, thereof, specific reasons on every count were recordedand,petitioner's claim was rejected. Said speaking order has also been challenged by petitioner vide a separate writ petition bearing CWP No.17751 of 2016 which is also being disposed of vide this common order. More of it later,at appropriate stage, in the succeeding paragraphs.
16. Reverting now to the alleged violations in the selection process, as pointed out byMr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, learned counsel. He particularly stressed on non-adherence of Rule 7, which envisages the method of appointment to the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail. Let us first have a look on the pre-requisites for the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail as per Page 7 of 21 7 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014 advertisement in question (Annexure P-5), relevant part of which is as below:-
"Cat. No.3 : 29 posts of Assistant Superintendent Jail (Male) (GEN = 12, SC=3, BCA=4, BCB=2, ESM GEN=3, ESM SC=1, ESM BCA=1, ESM BCB=2, OSP SC=1) EQ.: i) A degree in Arts, Science, Agriculture and Commerce from a recognized University.
Preference will be given to candidate having experience or additional qualification in social and correctional works. Social Sciences, Penology, Psychology or Criminology.
2. Other things being equal preference will be given to a candidate, who has himself working for the cause of National Independence or has rendered some outstanding social or public service.
ii) Knowledge of Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric standard.
iii) Physical Standard:-
Minimum Height : 170 Cms (5'7") & in case of Dogra and Gorkha 165 Cms (5'5") Chest: 83.8 Cms (33") Unexpanded & 87.6 Cms-Expanded.
Age: 21-25 years Note: (in case of Govt. Servants who have not less than 5 years service under Govt. upper age limit shall be 35 years). Pay scale : Rs.9300-34800+3600 G.P."
17. At this stage, before proceeding further it would also be apposite to have a look at applicable Rules 7 & 8 of the Punjab Jails Department State Service (Class III Executive) Rules, 1963 (for short '1963 Rules'). Same are reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
"7. METHOD OF APPOINTMENT:-- Appointments to posts in the Service shall be made as under:--Page 8 of 21
8 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014 (1) In the case of Probation Officers, by promotion from amongst the Assistant Superintendents or Welfare Officers or Probation Officers appointed under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or Sub-Assistant Superintendent or Assistant Probation Officers having an experience of working on any of these posts for a minimum period of three years;
(2) In the case of Assistant Superintendents/Welfare Officers:--
(i) by direct appointment;
(ii) by transfer or deputation from any other service of the State or;
(iii) by promotion from amongst sub-Assistant Superintendents and Assistant Probation Officers having an experience of working on any of these posts for a minimum period of three years:
Provided that not less than 75 per cent of the posts will be filled in the manner specified in sub-Clause (i) and not more than 25 per cent in the manner specified in sub-clauses (ii) and
(iii);...........
Note - 1 - xxxxxxxxx Note - 2 Preference will be given to those persons who are sportsmen and are otherwise eligible for appointment in accordance with the provisions of these rules.
8. Conditions for direct appointment - No person shall be eligible for direct appointment, unless he -
(i) Possesses the educational qualifications prescribed for the post as shown in column 6 of Appendix 'A' to these rules; and
(ii) has the following physical standard:-
(a) In the case of Assistant Superintendents or Welfare Officers or Probation Officers appointed under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Height - 5'7" (5'-5" in case of Dogras and Gurkhas), Chest -33" unexpanded - 34½ expanded.
(b) In the case of Selection Grade Warders/Ordinary Grade Warders - Height - 5'6" (5'-4½" in case of Dogras and Gurkhas), Chest girth - 33" (minimum) Vision - Normal in both eyes.
Note : The above noted physical standard shall not be applicable in the case of women candidates."
Page 9 of 21
9 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014
18. Appendix 'A' mentioned in Rule 8 of 1963 Rules envisages as below:-
Appendix-A Sr.No. Designation of the Number of Posts Scale of Pay Authority Minimum Age for direct Post P T Total competent to qualifications for direct appointment make recruitment appointment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SECTION I SUPERVISORY EXECUTIVE STAFF
(a) Probation Officers 2 .. 2 Rs. Inspector- No direct appointment under the Good 150-10-250/ General Conduct Prisoners 15-370 Probational Release Act
(b) Assistant 46 15 61 100-10-200/ Ditto A degree in Arts, (i) from 21 years to Superintendents of 10-300 Science, Agriculture and 25 years Welfare Officers or Commerce from a Probation Officers recognized University (ii) in case of appointed under the Government Probation of servants who Offenders Act, 1958 have not less than 5 years service under Government upper age limit shall be 35 years.
Note - 4 posts of Senior Assistant Ditto Preference will be given (iii) Superintendents carry a special pay at to candidates having Rs.25 per mensem. experience or additional qualifications in social and correctional works, Social Sciences, Penology, Psychology or Criminology.
2. Other things being equal preference will be given to a candidate who has himself worked for the cause of National Independence or has rendered some outstanding social or public service.
19. A comparison of above chart (Appendix A) read with 'Note 2'of 'Rule 7' vis-à-vis the advertisement in questionindeed reveals there is a complete omission in the advertisement qua mentioning of the preference to be given to sportsmen. That apart, as compared to Appendix 'A' of the Rules, with regard to the qualifications, the advertisement (Annexure P-
5)certainly mentions a degree in the prescribed streams with a preference to those having experience or additional qualifications in social and correctional works etc. However, I am unable to persuade myself with the contention that merely because there is a mention of certain preference to be given to the Page 10 of 21 10 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014 candidates, having experience or additional qualifications, would vitiate the entire selection process. Even if I were to accept the argument that the said preference is meant only for Senior Assistant Superintendents and not for Assistant Superintendents, it does not preclude the State to merely mention that preference would be given to those having higher qualifications than the one prescribed for the post of Assistant Superintendents. It is trite to mention that giving such a preference would not amount to change of the goalpost and/or reducing the benchmark qua the eligibility conditions. Needless to say, question of preference arises when other things are equal. Illustratively, say when two candidates with same score are pitted against each other having secured same marks in the selection process, the benefit of giving preference should and ought to kick in only then. It is not stated anywhere in the advertisement that any extra marks are to be awarded for possession of higher degree or qualifications. If it were so, the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner would have been then acceptable.
20. As already noted above, there is an omission on the part of Haryana Staff Selection Commission in not mentioning in the advertisement that sportsmen would be given preference, but the same can not, in any manner, be taken to mean as if the Commission was not aware of its legal obligation as envisaged under 'Note 2' of 'Rule 7'. Once again, benefit of preference would be doled out only when two persons are equally placed, having regard to all other parameters including the marks obtained by them. It is then that the selecting authority would adopt the criteria of value addition of one candidate over the other. In the present case, no doubt the petitioner Page 11 of 21 11 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014 is a sportsperson, but he scored abysmally low marks i.e. 23.06 marks for academic qualification + 10 marks for viva voce against the last selected candidate, assuming the latter to be a non-sportsperson. Still, if some preference were to be given to the petitioner, the same would have been applicable only in case his total marks on all other parameters had been equivalent to the last selected candidate.
21. At the cost of repetition, preference by no stretch of imagination is to be interpreted so as to mean a person who is lower in merit is to be accorded additional marks in respect of the preference. If that were the case, the rules would have provided so, which concededly is not the position herein.
22. Next, the argument that 25 marks allocated for interview is excessive, on the first flush seems attractive, but is not acceptable, as in the case in hand, the entire selection was based merely on interview. I see nothing wrong in keeping the interview marks as 25 out of the total marks of 75 for which the candidates were made to compete, 50 being towards academic qualification. The academic parameters have no room for any subjectivityand the marks for the same were to be awarded in the same selection purely on objective criteria, as has been stated in the advertisement. Most certainly, there is always a room for interplay in the cases of selection where it is purely on interview basis, but if such is the nature of selection then one has to necessarily go with the legal presumption of its correctness unless there is any mala fide or allegation of any nepotism orwhen the marks given in viva-voce are not based on interaction between the interviewee and Page 12 of 21 12 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014 the interviewer, howsoever little may be the allotment of time for interview or howsoeverbig the number of candidates appearing in the viva-voce. Conversely, the selection process in hand if it were based on 50 marks allotted for the written examination and 25 for viva-voce, then perhaps the argument that excessive marks (being 33.33%) have been allotted to viva- voce would have had some merit. Being not so, to say that the viva-voce marks were excessive is completely a listless submission. Also, not to be missed,that petitioner was fully aware well before participation in the selection process about criteria with regard to allocation of 50 marks towards academic qualification and 25 for viva-voce. And yet, he maintained stoic silence,both before and after the selection process. It was only when the result was declared and he did not find himself in the list of successful candidates, that he turned around to dig holes in the entire selection, citing alleged violations, as already noted hereinabove.
23. The argument qua violation of the reservation, it being more than 50%, also suffers from equal insipidity. It seems to be based on clearly wrong calculations of simple mathematics. Perusal of the break-up of 29 posts as per the advertisement reveals that there are 12 posts in General Category and 3 in ESM General Category. The reservation of three posts in ESM General Category was horizontal within the general category itself. Thus, there were in real terms, total of 15 posts in General Category which is more than 50% of 29 posts. It is nobody's case that the horizontal reservation of ESM General category is a separate reservation. It is, therefore, apparent that there is no violation of the 50% ceiling meant for all reserved categories. Page 13 of 21
13 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014 Arguments to the contrary are being discussed and noted herein only to be rejected.
24. Qua the destruction of the record, much ado was made out and the learned counselreferred to various judicial orders passed during the pendency of the writ proceedings. I am unable to draw any adverse inference in this connection based on those orders as the hype created is completely unnecessary. For the reason, firstly, that there is no challenge to the procedure laid down by the Commission way back on 27.07.1992 vide resolutions (Annexure R-3/6) and 01.10.1994 (Annexure R-3/7) to weed out the obsolete record;secondly, the Commission has been weeding out its obsolete record since 1992 and, therefore,one cannot draw an oblique meaning, if as per the established and long followed procedure/practice, the obsolete record of the disputed selection process was also destroyed.
25. As such, the argument of the learned counsel that since the whole process was tainted and suffered from many legal violations and that is why the commission deliberately destroyed the record of the disputed selection in order to cover up its lapses seems to be quite listless. Assuming even if it is correct, as canvassed, then too alleged violations arenot fatal per se to the entire selection for reasons enumerated in preceding paras. In any case, the procedure and the resolutions/procedure adopted by the Commission to weed out its obsolete record is understandable, given the large number of selections and the sheer colossal number of candidates who compete and appear in different competitionsand the ever increasing volume of record of past selections. It is perhaps impossible for the selection commission to Page 14 of 21 14 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014 permanently keep/maintain the records for posterity, beyond of course certain reasonable period. In the present case, selection took place in the year 2013 and in due coursethe records were destroyed in the year 2014. And that too, before the first writ petition was filed. It is thus not even the case that the record was destroyed after filing of the writ petitions. The relevant extract of the affidavit in this regard, filed by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, is asbelow:-
"7. That as far as question regarding destruction of record in HSSC is concerned, in this regard it is submitted that HSSC only destruct the used/unused question booklet, OMR Sheet, Admit Card and Attendance Sheet pertaining to the written examination of only those categories whose result has been declared more than 3 months ago and Member Sheet, Advisor Sheet, Attendance Sheet and Application Form pertaining to such category of post wherever more than 6 months have been passed after completion of selection process after conducted the written test/interview. Copies of resolution dated 27.07.1992 and 01.10.1994 for destruction of record are enclosed are Annexure 3/6 and 3/7."
On perusal of the above stand, I am unable to persuade myself to accept the contention that there was any mala fide on the part of the Commission in destroying or weeding out their records.
26. Last of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a post in question is still lying vacant since respondent No.20 did not join and, despite the post having been left vacantfrom day one the same has not been given to the petitioner. I would have agreed with the claim of the petitioner had it been a case that he had scored equivalent marks with the last selected candidate in his category. And/or he having scored same marks had a preferential claim being a sportsperson and/or otherwise or even if he had been next in merit immediately below the last selected candidate to be Page 15 of 21 15 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014 accommodated on the next available vacant post . As already noted above, the petitioner secured marks way below the benchmark and cannot be allowed to take undue benefit merely because he had chosen to file this writ petition. It would be highly inequitable to accept his claim, which would mean ignoringthe other candidates, who secured much more than 33.06 marks of the petitioner and were more meritorious than him, and yet, those other candidates were/could not be selected. One does not know how many of them would have been more meritorious than the petitioner, but were rightly not selected as they had lesser marks than the last selected candidate.
27. In the totality of circumstances, petitioner does not succeed on any of the counts pleaded in the petition or argued by his learned counsel.
28. In the parting, I may hasten to add that learned counsel for the petitioner had rather over-empathetically objected to the procedure of the Commission in deputing only single member interviewer to conduct the viva- voce. It is too belated to challenge the same, once the petitioner unsuccessfully participated and did not make it. Speaking of law, nothing has beenreferred fromany statutory provisions and/or rules or notifications prohibiting the Commission from deputing a single member as an interviewer. I would, therefore, refrain from interfering with the disputed selectionon that score. However, it seems desirable and is expected of the Commission that in order to have more transparency and to avoid any misuse of discretion and/or interplay thereof, in future it would do betterby notdeputing sole interviewer for selections. Be that as it may, that is for futureand there is nothing to justify for turning the clock back or undoing Page 16 of 21 16 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014 the disputed selection which has attained finality. In any case, it is not shown herein as to how conducting of viva-voce by a single member interviewer was in violation of any statutory provisions.
II) CWP-17751-2016 (O&M)
29. Adverting to the second writ petition, petitioner is seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quashing order dated 20.05.2016 and communicated vide memo dated 31.05.2016 (Annexure P-10).
30. Having perused the impugned speaking order dated 20.05.2016, I see no ground to interfere withthe same. In any case, my foregoing discussion qua the earlier writ petition could be as much relevant and applicable to the second writ petition.
31. In addition, I may like to note here that in the speaking order the criteria adopted by the Commission has been fully disclosed as below:-
"......The criteria adopted by the Commission for the selection was as under:-
i. Academic Marks - 50 marks
ii. Marks obtained in - 25 marks
Viva-Voce
iii. Total - 75 marks
The petitioner being unsuccessful in the selection obtained information from the Commission under the RTI Act about the selection criteria and marks obtained by the selected candidates, which is as under:-
1. Matric/+2 - 10 marks (0.10 of the percentage of Mark in whichever higher marks have been obtained.Page 17 of 21
17 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014
2. Essential qualification- 35 marks (0.35 of the percentage of marks obtained).
3. Higher qualification - 05 marks (Ph.D.=5, Post Graduation in Social Work = 02 post, Graduation = 01 marks)
4. Viva Voce - 25 marks Total - 75 marks"
32. Based on the above criteria supra, selected candidates in the General Category with whom petitioner competed secured as below:- Sr. No. Roll No. Total Marks out of 75
marks
1. 0163 47.40
2. 0183 45.10
3. 0657 45.88
4. 1136 45.84
5. 01749 46.76
6. 2861 47.08
7. 3085 45.92
8. 3106 47.06
9. 3767 (BCB) 36.87 (unselected candidate)
10. 3815 46.08
11. 4003 44.11
12. 2861 47.08
33. Petitioner secured 23.06 marks for his academic qualifications and 10 marks in viva-voce, thusa mere 33.06 marks in aggregate. Better and more detailed splitbreak-up of marks awarded to the selected candidates is as under:-
Sr.No. Roll No. Academic Viva Voce Total Marks out of Qualification 75 marks
1. 163 26.40 21 47.40
2. 183 23.10 22 45.10
3. 657 27.88 18 45.88
4. 1136 24.84 21 45.84 Page 18 of 21 18 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014
5. 01749 26.76 20 46.76
6. 2861 27.08 20 47.08
7. 3085 24.92 21 45.92
8. 3106 25.06 22 47.06
9. 3815 27.08 19 46.08
10. 4003 22.11 22 44.11
11. 2861 27.08 20 47.08
12. 3767 25.87 11 36.87 Only one candidate's marks are little close (though still higher) to the marks obtained by petitioner i.e. 36.87, marks but it transpires that he was not selected in General Category since he belonged to BCB Category.
34. Also to be noted, that the claim of the petitioner to quash the selection of respondents No.5 to 33, in any case, cannot be entertained since there is no challenge to the advertisement in question. Indeed, the interview was conducted on 22.09.2012 and the result was declared on 22.04.2013, as against the advertisement which was published in the year 2010, resulting in the entire process to take about more than 3 years. Even the first writ petition was filed belatedly, sometime on or about 25.03.2014. Thus, on the ground of delay and laches also, petition deserves to be dismissed.
35. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon catena of judgmentsviz :-
i) Satyavir Kaushik vs. State of Haryana and another, 2005(2) S.C.T. 808
ii) M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopa vs. Nanuram Yadav and others, 2007 (8) SCC 264
iii) Deepthy Vijayakumar vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others, 2009(1) S.C.T. 144
iv) Renu and others vs. District and Session Judge, Tis Hazari and another, 2014(14) SCC 50 Page 19 of 21 19 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014
v) Ramesh Kumar vs. High Court of Delhi and Another, 2010(3) SCC 104
vi) State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Ku. Sandhya Tomar and another, 2013(11) SCC 357
vii) Suman Devi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, passed in Civil Appeal Nos.554-557 of 2021, decided on 25.03.2021
viii) Mr. Ajay Hasia etc. vs. Khalid MujidSehravardi and others, 1981(1) SCC 722
ix) Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana, 1985(4) SCC 417
x) MohinderSain Garg vs. State of Punjab and others and other connected cases, 1991(1) SCC 662
xi) Wahab Uddin and others vs. Km. Meenakshi Gahlot and others, passed in Civil Appeal No.6477 of 2021, decided on 13.11.2021
xii) Rajesh Kumar and others etc. vs. State of Bihar and others, etc., 2013(4) SCC 690
xiii) Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1993 AIR (SC) 477
xiv) Poonam Rani @ Poonam vs. State of Haryana and another, 2012(6) SCC 596
xv) Sachin Kumar and others vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and others, 2021 (2) S.C.T. 50 xvi) Vikas Pratap Singh and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2013(14) SCC 494 xvii) Navjiwan vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014(4) S.C.T. 19 xviii) Neeraj vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 (3) S.C.T. 827 xix) Sahil Aggarwal vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014(3) S.C.T. 813 xx) Prabhjot Singh vs. Punjab Pollution Control Board and another, rendered in CWP No.7114 of 2016, decided on 22.08.2019 xxi) Guneet Pal Singh Sodhi vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another, rendered in CWP No.7428 of 2012, decided on 20.01.2015 Page 20 of 21 20 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 ::: CWP-6025-2014 None of these judgments are applicableto the case herein, given the fact and circumstances of the petitioner and the discussion rendered herein above.
36. Law is fairly well settled, that unsuccessful candidates should not be allowed to take a 'U' turn just to turn turtle the entire cart on having failed to make the cut.
III) CWP-10411-2015 (O&M)
37. Adverting to the third writ petition, petitioner here too is seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash selection/appointment of respondents No.5 to 32 as Assistant Superintendent Jail.
38. Having perused the facts, which are similar to aforesaid two writ petitions, I see no ground to interfere with the selection/appointment of respondents No.5 to 32. In any case, my discussion qua the earlier writ petitionsis as much relevant and applicable to this third writ petition as well.
39. In the premise, all petitions are dismissed.
40. No order as to costs.
41. Since the main cases have been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
May 31, 2022
ashish
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Page 21 of 21
21 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2022 01:32:01 :::