Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 December, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 24044 of 2012
Date of Decision : 5.12.2012
Sandeep ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner through this writ petition has approached this Court challenging the notification dated 15.3.2012 issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') whereby the minimum cut off percentage for short listing of the candidates for recruitment to the 22 posts of Labour Inspector for Labour Department, Haryana has been issued under their respective categories. Petitioner belong to the scheduled caste category for which the cut off percentage has been fixed as 63% in the degree of Bachelor of Arts including Public Administration of a recognised University or its equivalent.
The Commission issued an advertisement No.2/2010 dated 14.8.2010 (Annexure P-1) inviting 22 posts of Labour Inspectors to be filled in, out of which 3 posts were assigned to the scheduled caste category. As per the qualification prescribed under the Haryana Labour Department (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1982 Rules'), the same were incorporated in the advertisement as well which reads as follows:- CWP No. 24044 of 2012 -2-
"i) A degree of Bachelor of Arts including Public Administration of a recognised University or its equivalent. Persons possessing the qualifications of Diploma/ Degree in Social Welfare and Specilization in Labour Laws shall be preferred;
ii) Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric standard."
Petitioner fulfill the said qualifications and accordingly applied for the post of Labour Inspector. Vide the notification dated 15.3.2012, minimum cut-off percentage for the scheduled caste category has been fixed as 63% which has rendered the petitioner ineligible as he does not possess the same, leading to his approaching this Court by way of present writ petition.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that as per the 1982 Rules, the qualification prescribed is only degree of Bachelor of Arts including Public Administration of a recognised University or its equivalent. It does not specify any division or percentage of marks for being eligible. By fixing the minimum cut-off percentage at this level, the statutory rules stand violated as the petitioner has been rendered ineligible. It has further been contended that to achieve efficiency in service, preference has been given to persons possessing the qualification of Diploma/Degree in Social Welfare and Specialization in Labour Laws. Persons possessing this qualification have been put on a higher pedestal than the persons possessing only the Bachelor's degree of Arts including Public Administration. Petitioner possesses the preferential qualification, for appointment and by prescribing a minimum cut- off percentage on the essential qualification, rule relating to persons possessing preferential qualification has been rendered inoperative and has eliminated the petitioner and other candidates who have a better right of appointment than persons merely possessing Bachelor's degree. The statutory rules can be divided into two parts, first would be possession of the bare CWP No. 24044 of 2012 -3- minimum qualification i.e. Bachelor's degree and the second would be possessing preferential qualification. Candidates fulfilling the first and second part of the rule cannot be eliminated merely because he does not possess the minimum cut-off marks as has been fixed by the Commission at a subsequent stage. The Commission has not held written test to adjudge the suitability for the purpose of shortlisting. This would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the impugned notification is totally irrational, which runs contrary to the objectives sought to be achieved by the statutory service rules. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P.Dalip Kumar, 1993 (2) SCC 310 and State of Punjab and others Vs. Manjit Singh and others, 2003 (11) SCC 559, in support of their contentions.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record of the case.
Perusal of the above statutory rule which prescribes the qualifications for appointment to the post of Labour Inspector would indeed suggest that the basic qualification is a degree of Bachelor of Arts including Public Administration of a recognized University or its equivalent. All persons possessing this qualification are eligible for appointment to the post of Labour Inspector. There is a preference also provided in the qualification when it comes to appointment to the post that is to persons possessing the qualifications of Diploma/Degree in Social Welfare and specialization in Labour Laws. What could spell out from the rules would be that if no person possessing the preferential qualification for appointment is available then persons possessing degree of Bachelor of Arts including Public CWP No. 24044 of 2012 -4- Administration can be appointed as a Labour Inspector. The basic qualification, thus, for appointment to the post of Labour Inspector would be a degree of Bachelor of Arts including Public Administration.
The shortlisting, thus, resorted to by the Commission cannot be faulted with especially when in the advertisement dated 14.8.2010 itself, special instructions have been inserted in this regard which read as follows:-
"The prescribed essential qualification does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview. The Commission may short list the candidates for interview by holding a written examination or on the basis of rationale criterion to be adopted by the Commission. The decision of the Commission in all matters relating to acceptance or rejection of an application, eligibility/suitability of the candidates, mode of, and criteria for selection etc. will be final and binding on the candidates. No inquiry or correspondence will be entertained in this regard."
Perusal of the above would further clarify the situation i.e. the Commission could resort to shortlisting of the candidates for interview either by holding a written examination or on the basis of rationale criterion to be adopted by the Commission. This is further clarified by the previous sentence that the prescribed essential qualification does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview. The shortlisting of the candidates for interview was to be held keeping in view the essential qualification prescribed which as has been seen above is a Bachelor's degree in Arts including Public Administration. Petitioner was well aware of the fact that the Commission could resort to the process of shortlisting and therefore, he cannot at this stage make a grouse for that.
There can be no doubt with regard to the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that persons possessing the qualifications of Diploma/Degree in Social Welfare and specialisation in Labour Laws shall have preference over persons possessing a degree of Bachelor of Arts CWP No. 24044 of 2012 -5- including Public Administration of a recognised University or its equivalent. That stage would only come at the time of assessing the suitability of a candidate for the post i.e. the interview. Same is the view of the Supreme Court in the case of Manjit Singh (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner as also in the case of P. Dalip Kumar (supra). In both judgments shortlisting and the power to do so by the recruiting agency has been approved and therefore, resort to the same by the Commission in the present case especially when the same finds mentioned in the advertisement itself cannot be faulted with.
For the petitioner to claim any benefit out of the judgment on which reliance has been placed by him, he was required to plead and prove that the Commission had not formulated a rationale criterion for shortlisting the candidates or this shortlisting has resulted in reducing the number of candidates to such an extent that the ratio of candidates for the post has been reduced to an extent which is lower than the generally accepted ratio of 3:5 candidates for one post depending upon the number of seats. There being no such pleading nor being any material on record to arrive at such a conclusion, the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner do not help the cause of the petitioner.
In view of the above, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 5.12.2012 sjks