Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr.Rajbir Singh Yadav And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 2009
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 03, 2009
Dr.Rajbir Singh Yadav and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
Mr. H. N. Mehtani, Advocate,
for HPSC.
Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.13, 28, 37, 51 and 74.
Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate
for respondent No.9.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.16651 of 2003 (Dr.Rajbir Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others), 18025 of 2002 (Sudhir Kumar Kalra Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission and others), 2326 of 2003 (Dr.Rawat Singh CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003 :{ 2 }:
Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission and others), 3986 of 2003 (Jatinder Verma Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission and others), 4911 of 2003 (Naresh Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others), and 14691 of 2004 (Dr.Anita Balain and others Vs. State of Haryana and others). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.16651 of 2003.
The petitioners have challenge the selection of candidates appointed to the posts of Principal/senior Specialists (H.E.S. Class II School Cadre) made pursuant to the advertisement dated 5.3.2002, Annexure P-2. On 5.3.2002, Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commission") invited applications for 85 posts of Principals, Government Senior Secondary Schools/Senior Specialists HES-II out of which 53 posts were meant for general category. The qualification prescribed for these posts were M.A/M.Sc./M.Com. IInd Division and B.T./B.Ed. or its equivalent along with 8 years' experience as on 5.4.2002. The petitioners, being fully eligible, applied for the said posts. Screening test was held on 25.5.2002. The result thereof was published on 5/6.6.2002. On 26.6.2002 onwards, the petitioners were called for interview. They, however, were not selected. They were also not disclosed the marks for screening test or for interview. They were also unaware of the criteria, which was adopted for the interview. The final result of the interview was published on 13.8.2002. The petitioners obtained some information about the selected candidates. They accordingly filed these writ petitions, alleging that the selection has been made to accommodate kith and kin of members and even the ineligible persons, who did not fulfill the requisite experience of 8 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003 :{ 3 }:
years teaching had been selected. The petitioners accordingly approached the Commission with a prayer to supply the criteria adopted by them for making selection. However, when the Commission did not supply any information in response to the representation, the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No.16913 of 2002 for a direction to the respondents to supply the criteria adopted for making selection to the posts of Principals and so also the details of marks, which the petitioners and other selected candidates have obtained. This prayer of the petitioners was not accepted by this Court. However, it was observed that it would always be open for the petitioners to challenge the selection of selected candidates and accordingly, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.
When the case came up for hearing on 11.2.2009, this Court observed that criteria laid down by the Commission for recruitment to the posts of Principal be placed on record of the aforesaid writ petition. Complying with this order, the Commission through its Application No.6781 of 2009 placed on record additional reply, mentioning the criteria, which was followed by the Commission while making recruitment to the posts of Principal, HES Class II. A perusal of the criteria placed on record revealed that there were total 100 marks for viva-voce test, which were distributed as under:-
"1. Personal achievements:-
There will be 25 marks for Higher qualification, experience and co-curricular activities.
Marks will be awarded according to the following criteria:-
(a) Higher Qualification (Maximum 10 marks) i. For Ph.D. 10 marks CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003 :{ 4 }:
ii. For M.Phil. 5 marks
iii.For M.Ed. 5 marks
Candidates possessing both Ph.D. And M.Phil. Or M.Ed. Will not be awarded more than 10 marks.
b. Experience:- (Maximum 10 marks) 2 marks per year will be awarded for teaching or administrative experience in addition to what experience is necessary to make a candidate eligible. The maximum marks for experience will be 10 marks.
(c) Position in University Examination in Post Graduation:-
Candidate getting first, Second & Third position in University examination at post graduation level will be awarded 5 marks in all i.e.:-
First Position 5 marks
Second Position 3 marks
Third Position 2 marks
II. Interview:-
The interview test will be conducted to test the knowledge of the subject, intelligence, awareness, teaching faculty, articulations, expression, speaking ability and other related qualities. There will be 75 marks assigned for this test. They are distributed as under:-
i. Knowledge and awareness 25 marks ii. Teaching faculty including articulation 22 marks expression and speaking ability.
Iii. Intelligence and other qualities 25 marks In order to make a precise assessment the Candidate will CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003 :{ 5 }:
be granted in consultation with the expert advisor in the following categories for each of the three groups of qualities. Marks will be awarded in accordance with category in which a candidate is graded:-
i. Knowledge and awareness:-
a. Good 18-25
b. Average 9 - 17
c. Poor 1-8
ii. Teaching faculty including articulation, expression and speaking ability:-
a. Good 18-25
b. Average 9 - 17
c. Poor 1-8
iii.Intelligence and other qualities:-
a. Good 18-25
b. Average 9 - 17
c. Poor 1-8
For qualifying the viva-voce test the candidate must obtain at least 40% marks in aggregate."
When this criteria was placed on record by the Commission, the counsel for the petitioners sought time to point out short-comings and arbitrariness in the said criteria. This permission was granted vide order dated 16.4.2009 with a direction that advance copies be provided to the counsel for the respondents to file response thereto. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application, pointing out infirmities and arbitrariness in the criteria that was adopted by the Commission. The challenge to the criteria was made CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003 :{ 6 }:
on number of grounds as contained in the said application with a plea that fixing of viva-voce marks in this manner will violate the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as such, it was accordingly liable to be struck down. Some submissions were made on the basis of law laid down in Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, 1981 (1) SCC 722 and Ashok Kumar Yadav and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1985 (4) SCC 417. Basically, it was alleged that 100 marks fixed for evaluation only on the basis of interview would lead to arbitrary consideration and selection and hence, was bad on that count.
The Commission filed a response to this challenge raised on behalf of the petitioners in the application. The criteria adopted by the respondent-Commission has been justified. It is stated in the reply that the criteria does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity as pointed out in the application. It is further pleaded that the petitioners had participated in the selection process and once having not succeeded there at, have chosen to challenge the criteria. Reference is made to number of judgments in this regard to say that where the challenge was made to the process of selection after participation, such a challenge would not need consideration. Justifying the method of selection and appointment, it is pointed out that yardstick to be followed for allocation of marks in cases where the selection is made on the basis of written test and viva-voce can not be applied to the case in which selection is exclusively made on the basis of interviews. Accordingly, the judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioners have been distinguished.
When the matter came up for hearing on 23.7.2009, the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003 :{ 7 }:
submissions on behalf of the petitioners ultimately centered around the fact of fixing 75 marks for the interview. This, according to the petitioners, could be utilised in the discretion of the Members to select the preferred ones. From this, counsel for the petitioners have forcefully argued that arbitrariness in fixing the criteria is indicated.
In this background, it is thought proper to call for the record of selection to see in case any of the candidate has been given excessive marks during interview or in other words, the candidates who were not selected and were the petitioners, were brought down while assessing them in the interview so as to oust them. The evaluation done by the Interview Committee was summoned to be placed before the Court in a sealed cover. Mr.Mehtani today has brought before this Court the record of selected candidates as well as those candidates who could not make it on the basis of merit. I have perused the record and have noticed that there is not much substantial difference in the assessment of candidates in the interview marks. Generally there is a difference of 1 or 2 marks in the assessment of candidates as far as the interview is concerned. In some of the cases, the marks obtained by the candidates, who could not be selected, were rather little higher than those who did make the grade. I am, thus, satisfied that there is no arbitrariness or discrimination noticeable from the marking in the interview. Otherwise also, the selection in the present case was made in the year 2002 and the candidates selected have already worked for over a period of 7 years. Prima-facie, I have not been able to see any arbitrariness or unfairness in the method of selection or fixing of criteria, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003 :{ 8 }:
jurisdiction.
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. The record, after perusal, has been got resealed and returned to Mr.H.N.Mehtani, counsel for the Commission.
August 03, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE