Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhawna vs State Of Haryana & Another ... on 23 April, 2013
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.7603 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.4.2013
Bhawna --Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & another --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:- Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate for the H.P.S.C.
***
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J This order shall dispose of CWP No. 7603 of 2013 titled as Bhawna Vs. State of Haryana and another and CWP No. 7498 of 2013 titled as Manoj Bhardwaj Vs. H.P.S.C and another as identical issue is involved in both the writ petitions. Facts, however, are being noticed from CWP No. 7603 of 2013.
The challenge in these writ petitions is to the criteria of shortlisting adopted by the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as the Commission) for selection to the post of Assistant Director (Technical)/Principal, I.T.I Group A Junior in the Industrial Training Department, Haryana. The Commission issued advertisement dated 19.10.2012, whereby amongst other posts, 17 posts of Assistant Director (Technical)/Principal, I.T.I Group A Junior in the Industrial Training Department, Haryana were also advertised. The essential qualifications prescribed for the post were in the following terms:-
"3. Essential Qualifications:-
(i) Degree in Bachelor of Engineering or its equivalent from a recognized university or institution;CWP No.7603 of 2013 (O&M) -2-
(ii) Five years experience in supervisory capacity in a workshop or in an organization of repute;
(iii) Teaching experience in Govt. Technical Instiutions shall be considered as an additional qualification; and
(iv) Adequate knowledge of Hindi/Sanskrit."
It has been pleaded that the petitioner was eligible for the post as she possessed the essential qualifications prescribed and had submitted the application form within the stipulated time frame. On 25.3.2013 the respondent-Commission issued a notice informing the candidates as regards a decision having been taken on account of the large number of applications having been received, to resort to a process of shortlisting in the respective categories for calling such shortlisted candidates for interview. In the notice the Commission informed the candidates that shortlisting was being done on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in the advertised essential academic qualifications. Accordingly, the minimum cut off percentage in essential academic qualifications for each category was fixed as under:-
Sr. No. Category % of Marks in Degree in Bachelor of
Engineering or its equivalent
1 General 65%
2 Scheduled Castes of Haryana 60%
3 Backward Classes of Haryana 60%
4 ESM of Haryana All candidates
The petitioner, who belongs to the general category and has secured 62.3% marks in the essential academic qualification is aggrieved of such action of shortlisting, whereby the minimum cut off percentage prescribed in relation to general category candidates has been stipulated as 65%.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the criteria adopted by the Commission for shortlisting the candidates to appear in the interview for the post in question in the light of CWP No.7603 of 2013 (O&M) -3- impugned notice dated 25.3.2013 (Annexure P-6) is wholly arbitrary. It has been argued that in terms of such shortlisting procedure against the 17 posts advertised only 117 candidates would be called for the interview as against 340 eligible candidates who had applied. Counsel would submit that seven times of the candidates in relation to the total posts advertised are being called, whereas in relation to the post of Assistant District Attorney for which also the Commission is presently holding interviews, against 136 posts about 2300 candidates have been called which is almost 17 times the total number of posts advertised. The case set up on behalf of the petitioner is that the Commission should have adopted a uniform yardstick and if in the case of the post of Assistant Director/Principal, I.T.I Group A Junior seventeen times candidates in relation to the number of posts advertised had been called, then, the petitioner would not have been denied the right for consideration and appointment. It has further been argued that the selection criteria cannot be changed by the Commission after the selection process has been initiated. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of K.Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2008 (3) S.C.C 512 and Himani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi, 2008 (7) S.C.C 11.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length. It would require notice that on 9.4.2013 when this matter was heard first in point of time, Mr. H.N. Mehtani learned standing counsel for the Commission was present in Court and he was called upon to apprise the Court as regards the precise number of candidates that had been called for the interview against the 17 number of posts advertised. Information was also sought as regards the total number of candidates called for interview in CWP No.7603 of 2013 (O&M) -4- relation to the 136 posts of Assistant District Attorneys that had also been advertised by the Commission. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 10.4.2013 and on which date Mr. Mehtani informed the Court that as regards 17 posts of Assistant Director/Principal, I.T.I Group A Junior 378 applications had been received and by resorting to the process of shortlisting 108 candidates have been called for the interview i.e. seven times of the total number of posts advertised. In so far as the posts of Assistant District Attorneys are concerned, Mr. Mehtani would apprise the Court that against 136 posts advertised, 10096 applications had been received and by the process of shortlisting, whereby a minimum cut off percentage in the essential qualification had been stipulated, 1992 candidates i.e. 14 times the advertised posts had been called for the interview.
It is by now well settled that the recruiting authority is not bound to invite for selection all those candidates who apply for recruitment in pursuance to an advertisement and who fulfill the essential qualifications. It will always be open for the Commission to evolve an appropriate mechanism to call a limited number of candidates for selection. Towards such position in law a reference may be made to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this Court:-
1. Ashok Kumar Yadav and others Vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 S.C 454.
2. V.J. Thomas and others Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1985 S.C. 1055.
3. S.B. Mathur and others Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and others, AIR 1988 S.C 2073.
4. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another, AIR 1995 S.C. 77.CWP No.7603 of 2013 (O&M) -5-
5. Dr. Lovekesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1998 (1) R.S.J 566.
The action of the Commission in the present case was permissible in the light of the categoric stipulation contained in the initial advertisement dated 19.11.2012 which read in the following terms:-
"The prescribed essential qualifications are minimum and mere possession of the same does not entitle candidates to be called for interview. Where the number of applications received in response to the advertisement is large and it is not convenient or possible for the Commission to interview all the candidates, the Commission may restrict the number of candidates for interview to a reasonable limit on the basis of qualifications and experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement or by holding a screening test or any method devised by the Commission."
The Commission has in terms of the notice/corrigendum dated 25.3.2013 proceeded to shortlist candidates on the basis of a cut off percentage of marks obtained in the essential academic qualification. No exception can be taken to the same. Judicial review in such a matter would be open only if it could be shown that the Commission has acted arbitrarily or that the method devised by it is unfair, irrational or unreasonable.
The submission raised on behalf of the petitioner in drawing a parallel as regards number of candidates called for the posts of Assistant District Attorneys is also without merit. A perusal of the notice dated 9.11.2012 at Annexure P-7 issued by the Commission would reveal that a shortlisting procedure was adopted for interview for the posts of Assistant District Attorneys (Group B) by fixing a minimum cut off percentage in the essential qualifications prescribed. In that case for the general category CWP No.7603 of 2013 (O&M) -6- candidates the percentage of marks in the Bachelor of Law (Professional)/ LL.M had been fixed as 60%. It is in the light of such cut off percentage that 14 times the candidates in relation to the advertised posts had been called. The post in question in the present case is that of Assistant Director/Principal, I.T.I which is a Group A post. The essential qualification prescribed was a degree in Bachelor in Engineering or its equivalent. The cut off percentage for purposes of shortlisting for general category candidates stipulated was 65%. It would not be open for this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to impinge upon a territory which is exclusively earmarked for the premier State recruiting agency in so far as fixation of minimum cut off percentage in a process of shortlisting for two different posts, which are covered under different classifications which (i) Group A and the another (ii) Group B and also carry separate professional qualifications. No case of discrimination and arbitrariness as such is made out.
Even the reliance upon the judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of K.Manjusree and Himani Malhotra (supra) is wholly misplaced. The dictum of law laid in the aforenoticed judicial precedents was that the criteria of selection could not have been altered after the entire selection process had been completed as it would amount to changing the rules of game after the game itself had already been played. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. In terms of the impugned notice dated 25.3.2013 (Annexure P-6), it is only a process of shortlisting that has been resorted to. Such process of shortlisting shall not amount to altering or substituting the eligibility criteria. Such process as would be apparent from the impugned notice dated 25.3.2013 was resorted to on account of the fact CWP No.7603 of 2013 (O&M) -7- that large number of applications had been received in response to a limited number of posts advertised. The stipulated minimum cut off percentage prescribed is not after the selection process has been completed but on the other hand has been stipulated prior to the conduct of interview which is the sole criteria for selection.
For the reasons recorded above, no basis for interference is made out. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
Petitions dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 23.4.2013 lucky Whether to be reported? Yes.