Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bela Bansal vs State Of Haryana And Another on 18 December, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: A.K.Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
LPA No.2117 of 2012 [1]
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No.2117 of 2012
Date of decision:18.12.2012
Bela Bansal ...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.Sikri, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar Kansal,
for the appellant.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The appellant had applied for the post of Female Supervisor (General Category) in terms of the advertisement dated 18.03.2011 for which the essential qualifications were (i) Graduation from a recognized university, preferably in Home Science or Child Development or Nutrition and (ii) Hindi/Sanskrit up to Matric Standard. The appellant possesses the degree in Home Science with 63.24% marks and was aggrieved by the action of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") by which it has resorted to shortlist the candidates by fixing a minimum percentage of marks in the respective category for interview on the basis of essential academic advertised qualification i.e. Graduation, which has resulted into virtually deleting the preferential clause added in the qualification, which is in Home Science or Child Development or Nutrition. He has submitted that in the shortlisting process, the minimum percentage of marks have been fixed as 65% for General category in view of the corrigendum/notice dated 01.08.2012 leaving the appellant high and dry for competing for the said post.
The case set up by the appellant was that the Commission could not have deviated from the criteria already evolved. Basically, the appellant LPA No.2117 of 2012 [2] ***** is aggrieved against the benchmark of 65% marks for the purpose of eligibility for interview.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
Admittedly, 278 posts of Female Supervisor were advertised by the Commission for the Woman and Child Development Department Haryana in the following breakup:
"Cat. No.3. 278 posts of Female Supervisor (GEN=118, SC=47, BCA=34, BCB=21, ESM GEN=20, ESM SC=6, ESM BCA=7, ESM BCB=9, OSP GEN=2, OSP SC=3, OSP BCA=3, OSP BCB=1, PHC Blind/LV=7)"
The other essential qualifications for the said post are laid as under:
"i) Graduate from recognized university, preferably in Home Science or Child Development or Nutrition.
ii) Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric Standard."
In the public notice dated 01.08.2012, it is mentioned that because of the large number of applications, the Commission has decided to shortlist the candidates in the respective category for interview on the basis of essential academic qualification i.e. Graduate from recognized University, preferably in Home Science or Child Development or nutrition and the minimum cut of percentage for each category was mentioned as under:-
"Sr. No. Category %age 1 GEN 65 2 SC 60 3 BCA 62 4 BCB 62 5 ESM-Gen All Eligible 6 ESM-SC All Eligible 7 ESM-BCA All Eligible 8 ESM-BCB All Eligible 9 OSP-Gen All Eligible 10 OSP-SC All Eligible LPA No.2117 of 2012 [3] ***** "Sr. No. Category %age 11 OSP-BCA All Eligible 12 OSP-BCB All Eligible 13 PHC-Blind/LV 50"
It was also categorically provided that such candidates who do not possess the minimum cut off percentage for short listing under their respective categories are advised not to contact the Commission Office in that regard.
Since the appellant was possessing 63.24%, i.e. less than the cut off percentage of 65% for the General category, and she was not eligible for interview, therefore, the grievance has been raised that the criteria has been changed after the advertisement of the posts.
As a matter of fact, the criteria is the same, namely, the essential qualifications have not been changed and it is only the benchmark fixed by the Commission in view of receipt of large number of applications against the said advertised posts which, in our considered opinion, is neither illegal nor arbitrary. As per the settled law, whenever there is receipt of large number of applications in response to an advertisement for filling up of a post, the devise of shortlisting of the candidates by fixing a benchmark as a minimum cut off percentage is not arbitrary and it does not offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in any manner.
In the case of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another, (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 293, the validity of an order, issued by the Commission raising the period of practice as an advocate from five years to seven and half years for calling applicants for interview, for appointments against the posts of Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts was questioned. In that case, there were 4 posts available to the General category candidates for which the Commission had called for interview only 71 applicants, although 188 applicants were eligible, as per the requirement of the advertisement. Only those candidates were called for interview who had completed seven and half years of practice although in view of Section 8(3)(c), five years of LPA No.2117 of 2012 [4] ***** practice as an advocate or a pleader in the Madhya Pradesh was the minimum requirement. The Supreme Court approved the benchmark of seven and half years practice on the ground that where selection is to be made purely on the basis of interview and if the applications for such posts are enormous in number with reference to the number of posts available to be filled up, then the Commission or the Selection Board has no option but to short-list such applicants on some rational and reasonable basis.
In the present case also, keeping in view the large number of applications received to fill up the posts of Female Supervisors, the minimum cut off percentage has been fixed by the Commission for shortlisting the candidates which is neither arbitrary nor illegal.
In view thereof, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
(A.K.Sikri) (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
Chief Justice Judge
December 18, 2012
vinod*