Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sangita Devi vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 October, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
C.W.P.No.20038 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.20038 of 2012
Date of Decision:- 08.10.2012
Sangita Devi ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.R.S.Ghuman, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the notice dated 1.8.2012 (Annexure P-5) vide which a minimum cut off percentage of marks in respect of categories for interview on the basis of essential academic advertised qualification i.e. Graduation from recognized University has been fixed.
Petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Castes category and for the said category, the cut off percentage has been fixed as 60. This, the petitioner has assailed on the ground that there is no rationale of fixing such a cut off percentage of marks for the Scheduled Caste category.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that by this fixing of cut off percentage of marks, the basic claim of the petitioner for consideration for appointment to a public post, which has been advertised and for which she C.W.P.No.20038 of 2012 -2- fulfils the minimum qualification prescribed, has been taken away which would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the said impugned notice being unconstitutional deserves to be quashed. He has further contended that no cut-off percentage of marks has been prescribed for Ex-Servicemen General, Ex-Servicemen Scheduled Caste, Ex- Servicemen BCA, Ex-Servicemen BCB, Outstanding Sports Person General, Outstanding Sports Person Scheduled Caste, Outstanding Sports Person BCA, Outstanding Sports Person BCB and all applicants have been held to be eligible. This, the counsel contends, is not sustainable as it has created discrimination within the reserved category candidates by resorting to this process of short-listing.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the records of the case.
As far as the fixation of the minimum cut-off percentage of marks on the basis of essential academic advertised qualification for shortlisting the candidates for calling them for interview is concerned, this Court in a similar matter had already dealt with the same issue in CWP No.15822 of 2012 Mandhir and another vs. State of Haryana and others, and held as follows:-
"It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that advertisement dated 12.3.2010 (Annexure-P-4) was issued by the Commission- respondent No. 3 for filling up 150 posts of Pharmacists on regular basis. In pursuance thereto, as the petitioners fulfill the requisite qualification, applied for the said post C.W.P.No.20038 of 2012 -3- and submitted their application forms before the last date prescribed i.e. 12.4.2010. Almost after one year, a corrigendum dated 15.7.2011 (Annexure-P-5) was issued by respondent No. 3 when these posts were increased to 226. Thereafter, another corrigendum dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure-P-6) was issued by the Commission-respondent No. 3 wherein it has again been reduced to 165 posts of Pharmacists. Thereafter, now respondent No. 3 resorted to shortlisting of candidates by fixing a cut off percentage of 65% in the qualifying diploma course of Pharmacist for being eligible for calling the candidates for interview purpose. This, counsel for the petitioners states, is totally an arbitrary act on the part of the respondents. She contends that when in the special instructions, which was part of the advertisement, wherein it was specifically mentioned that shortlisting of candidates can be resorted to by way of written examination. The resort by the respondents to shortlisting by fixing 65% as marks for calling the candidates for interview, is not sustainable. She on this basis contends that the impugned notice/corrigendum dated 14.6.2012 (Annexure-P-7) deserves to be quashed.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and with her assistance have gone through the records of the case.
Special instructions, which was part of the C.W.P.No.20038 of 2012 -4- advertisement, as also the application form reads a follows :-
"Special Instructions :-
The prescribed essential qualification does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview. The Commission may shortlist the candidates for interview by holding a written examination or on the basis of a 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."
A perusal of the above would show that the Commission had put to notice the candidates that in case a large number of candidates would be eligible possessing the essential qualification, the Commission could resort to shortlisting the candidates for interview. Mere possession of essential qualification would not entitle a candidate to be called for interview. For resorting to shortlisting the candidates, it was provided that the Commission could hold a written examination or to lay down a rationale criteria to be adopted by the C.W.P.No.20038 of 2012 -5- Commission on the basis of which shortlisting could be done. If that be the intent as has been specified and having been informed, the resort by the respondents upon the process of shortlisting by fixing 65% minimum marks in the diploma course which is the qualifying examination for being eligible for applying the post for the purpose of interview cannot be faulted with as the power to lay down the criteria for shortlisting was kept by the Commission intact in its special instructions. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the same is arbitrary cannot be accepted as an uniform criteria has been adopted and made applicable to the selection process of shortlisting to all the candidates of the same category. This process and the resort of fixing the minimum cut off percentage is by now a well recognized process of shortlisting, which cannot be faulted with."
The only distinction in the above case and the present case is that the candidate in this petition belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and the cut off marks have been fixed as 60% instead of 65% which was fixed for the general category in that writ petition.
The additional contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have created a class within the reserved category also cannot be accepted on the ground that in the advertisement itself, separate categories have been mentioned and for that, separate number of posts have been kept reserved. Candidates from one category C.W.P.No.20038 of 2012 -6- cannot compete against other category except where provided under the instructions issued by the Government of Haryana.
As far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned, she belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. The cut-off marks for the other categories such as General, BCA and BCB are higher and, therefore, cannot in any case make a claim against those categories. The posts which have been reserved for the Ex-Servicemen, Outstanding Sports Persons and Physically Handicapped category cannot be claimed by the petitioner as she does not belong to the said category nor has she applied against the said category. That being so, the assertion of the counsel for the petitioner that further categorization has been made within the reserved category cannot be accepted as that principle would be applicable only in case there would have been such a distinction within the Scheduled Caste category which is not present in this case.
In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
October 08, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE