Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajit Singh & Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 April, 2010
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
CWP No.6693 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.6693 of 2010
Date of Decision: 09.04.2010
Ajit Singh & another
........Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
Present: Mr. J.K.Bedwal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. R.S.Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana
for the respondents.
******
PERMOD KOHLI, J.
Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'Commission') advertised 83 existing and 30 anticipated posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch). Advertised vacancies include General Category, Scheduled Castes, Backward Class, Ex-servicemen & Physically Handicapped categories. Petitioners claim their consideration under the Ex-servicemen category. Selection and appointment to the Judicial Service is governed and regulated by Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, as applicable to the State of Haryana. Govt. of Haryana amended the rules vide notification dated 23.03.2007 to provide for at least 50% marks in the aggregate of all papers including viva-voce test.
This criteria came to be challenged in CWP No.17020 of 2006 and other connected petitions. These petitions were considered along with LPA No.111 of 2007 by the Division Bench of this Court and disposed of, vide order dated 7th August, 2009. Before Hon'ble Division Bench one of the issue for the consideration was the validity of rule 8 of the Recruitment CWP No.6693 of 2010 -2- Rules, which inter alia provided that a candidate is required to obtain at least 50% marks in aggregate in all papers including viva was to become eligible for appointment. A direction was issued to re-consider the criteria on administrative side. In furtherance to the aforesaid observations, the rule making authority amended the rule 8 in the following manner, vide notification dated 10th February, 2010:-
"No candidate shall be called for the viva-voca unless he obtains at least fifty percent qualifying marks in the aggregate of all the written papers. However, for the candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes the qualifying marks shall be 45%".
In view of the aforesaid amendment, Haryana Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 10.03.2010, inviting applications from the elegible candidates for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch). The petitioners have applied for their selection/appointment under the ESI category for which the criteria as provided under rules and the advertisement is 50% marks in aggregate for all papers including viva-voce test.
The grievances of the petitioner is that the relaxation of minimum criteria for Scheduled Caste and Backward Class categories should have been extended to Ex-servicemen category as well.
To support their contention, reliance is placed on the observations of Hon'ble Division Bench in judgment dated 7th August, 2009, which read as under:-
"We, therefore, consider this to be a fit case in which the High Court ought to consider on the administrative side the desirability of reviewing the relevant rules and making necessary amendments wherever the same are found just and reasonable. CWP No.6693 of 2010 -3- This can be done not only in relation to Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe and Backward Class candidates, but even in relation to other reserved category candidates like ex-servicemen etc.".
To lay down criteria for selection is the prerogative of employer. What should be the percentage for any examination for selection has to be laid down by the expert bodies? It is not for this Court to venture into this area.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and keeping in view the fact that the employer is the best judge to determine the criteria for recruitment to any post or service and on the basis of its wisdom, which may inter alia include the efficiency and efficacy of service led on the norms in the criteria. Judicial Service is admittedly is important service where the valuable rights of the parties are to be adjudicated upon and no lexity can be entertained if rule making authority has decided to fix any criteria for recruitment, which is not for this Court find fault in the same particularly when apparently there is arbitrariness. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner belonging to reserve category should be treated at par with other categories.
I am unable to appreciate this contention that every category is its own disadvantages. No two categories can be compared are equated as per the disadvantages reserved. An Ex-servicemen cannot be set to be suffering from similar disadvantages as a member belonging to Schedule Caste or Backward Class. There is no violation of any right much less Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. No interference is warranted.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
April 9, 2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE