Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lajpat Rai And Another vs Haryana Public Service Commission And ... on 18 July, 2013
Author: M.M.S.Bedi
Bench: M.M.S.Bedi
CWP No.1284 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.1284 of 2013.
Date of Decision:-18.07.2013.
Lajpat Rai and another .........Petitioners.
Versus
Haryana Public Service Commission and others .........Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI
Present:- Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Karanvir Singh Khehar, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Mr. P.S.Poonia, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
*****
M.M.S.BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Petitioners have challenged the selection of respondent No.2 Nisha who has been selected to the post of Assistant Engineer, Electrical pursuant to the advertisement No.2 of 2009.
Main grievance of the petitioners is that the selection has not been conducted fairly on the basis of written test and interview and that the selection process is vitiated with the vice of arbitrariness and malafide.
In the reply filed by respondent No.1, it has been clarified that in view of large number of applications having been received, the written CWP No.1284 of 2013 -2- screening test was meant only for shortlisting the candidates for interview. The marks obtained in the written screening test are not to be counted for the final selection. For each category, the candidates, three times the number of posts advertised were called for interview after screening test which was meant for shortlisting the candidates to the posts reserved to that category. At the time of calling the candidates, it was found that only 159 candidates belonging to SC category had cleared the written examination whereas 67 posts were reserved for candidates belonging to SC category. Therefore, the respondent Commission decided that all the candidates of Scheduled Castes category who appeared in the written screening test be called for interview.
A direction was given to the Commission to produce the record of selection. The result sheet of viva-voce and the criteria for assessing the relative merit of the candidates through viva-voce for selection to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in Power Utilities i.e. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (HVPNL), Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. (HPGCL), Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (DHBVNL) and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (UHBVNL) in Haryana vide advertisement No.2 dated 4.6.2009, have been produced by respondent No.1.
The said criteria is reproduced as under:
"Total Marks of the Viva-voce: 100 Marks
1. Personal Achievements 40 marks
a) Academic Qualifications:
i) B.Tech. 10 marks
First Division: 10 marks
Second Division: 07 marks
CWP No.1284 of 2013 -3-
ii) Master of Engineering Degree in 10 marks
Electrical/
Electrical and Electronics
First Division: 10 marks
Second Division: 05 marks
iii) Ph.D. Degree in the relevant subject: 05 marks
b) Experience: 10 marks
One mark per completed year of
experience in the relevant field after
attaining the basic qualification upto the closing date subject to maximum of 10 marks.
c) Co-curricular Activities: 05 marks Participation in activities like NCC, NSS, Sports (Only National level), Cultural/ Literary/ Scientific/ Social activity.
Or Published work of high standard in journals of National or International repute. One mark will be given for each publication in National level journal and two marks for each publication in International journal.
2. Interview: 60 marks The interview will be conducted through oral discussion and questioning. The questions and discussion will be directed to ascertain the personal qualities, knowledge, awareness, intelligence, presentation, expression, poise, bearing, articulation & speaking ability etc. 60 marks are assigned for the interview with the following break up:-
i) Knowledge, awareness & general 20 marks interest etc. CWP No.1284 of 2013 -4-
ii) Intelligence, initiative, decision making, 20 marks expression, presentation etc.
iii) Poise, bearing, behaviour, adaptability, 20 marks articulation & other qualities.
For the convenience of awarding marks and realistic assessment, a candidate is to be categorised as under by the Expert Advisor and marks to be awarded by the Commission as shown against such gradation for each at (i), (ii) and (iii) above:-
Very Good 13-20 marks
Good 7-12 marks
Average 1-6 marks
A candidate must obtain at least 40% marks in the aggregate of 1 & 2 above to qualify the viva-voce."
I have gone through the entire record of selection. So far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, he appeared against Roll No.2346 and he did not produce NOC, as such, he was not interviewed. Petitioner No.2 who had been allotted Roll No.3146 had obtained total 40 marks. He had received 10 marks for academic qualification, 10 marks for knowledge and awareness etc., 10 marks for intelligence, initiative etc. and 10 marks for poise, bearing etc. whereas the respondent No.2 has obtained total 42 marks. She has been granted 1 mark extra as compared to petitioner No.1 on account of her experience whereas she has obtained another 1 mark extra in the interview for her poise, bearing, behaviour, adaptability etc. On determining the comparative merit of the petitioners vis-a- vis respondent No.2, I am of the considered opinion that no illegality or irregularity can be found in the objective comparative merit of petitioners vis-a-vis respondent No.2. The criteria laid down has been followed by the Selection Committee.
CWP No.1284 of 2013 -5-
The petition is, thus, dismissed.
The criteria and the result in original have been returned in separate sealed covers to the counsel for respondent No.1.
(M.M.S.BEDI)
July 18, 2013 JUDGE
'Yag Dutt'