Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision : 25.04.2012 vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission And ... on 25 April, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
C.W.P. NO.7502 OF 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
1. C.W.P. NO.7502 OF 2012
DATE OF DECISION : 25.04.2012
Akash Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission and others ...Respondents
2. C.W.P. NO.7553 OF 2012
Sachin Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present : Mr. R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate,
for the petitioner (In CWP No.7502 of 2012)
Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner. (In CWP No.7553 of 2012)
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana,
for the respondents.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
By this order, I propose to dispose of C.W.P. No.7502 of 2012 titled as 'Akash Kumar Vs. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and others' and C.W.P. No.7553 of 2012 titled as 'Sachin Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another' as common questions of fact and law are involved in these cases.
Petitioners through these writ petitions have approached this Court challenging the notification dated 15.03.2012 issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') whereby the minimum cut off percentage for short listing of C.W.P. NO.7502 OF 2012 -2- the candidates for recruitment to the 22 posts of Labour Inspector for Labour Department, Haryana has been issued under their respective categories. Petitioners belong to the general category for which the cut off percentage has been fixed as 67% in the degree of Bachelor of Arts including Public Administration of a recognised University or its equivalent.
The Commission issued an advertisement No.2/2010 dated 14.08.2010 (Annexure P-1) inviting 22 posts of Labour Inspectors to be filled in, out of which 12 posts were assigned to the general category. As per the qualification prescribed under the Haryana Labour Department (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1982 Rules'), the same were incorporated in the advertisement as well which reads as follows:-
"i) A degree of Bachelor of Arts including Public
Administration of a recognised University or its
equivalent. Persons possessing the qualifications of Diploma/ Degree in Social Welfare and Specilization in Labour Laws shall be preferred;
ii) Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric standard."
Petitioners fulfill the said qualifications and accordingly applied for the post of Labour Inspector. Vide the notification dated 15.03.2012, minimum cut-off percentage for the general category has been fixed as 67% which has rendered the petitioners ineligible as they do not possess the same, leading to their approaching this Court by way of present writ petitions.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that as per the 1982 Rules, the qualification prescribed is only degree of Bachelor of Arts including Public Administration of a recognised University or its equivalent. It does not specify any division or percentage of marks for C.W.P. NO.7502 OF 2012 -3- being eligible. By fixing the minimum cut-off percentage at this level, the statutory rules stand violated as the petitioners have been rendered ineligible. It has further been contended that to achieve efficiency in service, preference has been given to persons possessing the qualification of Diploma/Degree in Social Welfare and Specialization in Labour Laws. Persons possessing this qualification have been put on a higher pedestal than the persons possessing only the Bachelor's degree of Arts including Public Administration. Petitioners possess the preferential qualification, for appointment and by prescribing a minimum cut-off percentage on the essential qualification, rule relating to persons possessing preferential qualification has been rendered inoperative and has eliminated the petitioners and other candidates who have a better right of appointment than persons merely possessing Bachelor's degree. The statutory rules can be divided into two parts, first would be possession of the bare minimum qualification i.e. Bachelor's degree and the second would be possessing preferential qualification. Candidates fulfilling the first and second part of the rule cannot be eliminated merely because they do not possess the minimum cut-off marks as has been fixed by the Commission at a subsequent stage. The Commission has not held written test to adjudge the suitability for the purpose of shortlisting. This would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the impugned notification is totally irrational, which runs contrary to the objectives sought to be achieved by the statutory service rules. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P.Dalip Kumar, 1993 (2) SCC 310 and State of Punjab and others Vs. Manjit Singh and others, 2003 (11) SCC 559, in support of their contentions.
C.W.P. NO.7502 OF 2012 -4-
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
Perusal of the above statutory rule which prescribes the qualifications for appointment to the post of Labour Inspector would indeed suggest that the basic qualification is a degree of Bachelor of Arts including Public Administration of a recognized University or its equivalent. All persons possessing this qualification are eligible for appointment to the post of Labour Inspector. There is a preference also provided in the qualification when it comes to appointment to the post that is to persons possessing the qualifications of Diploma/Degree in Social Welfare and specialization in Labour Laws. What could spell out from the rules would be that if no person possessing the preferencial qualification for appointment is available then persons possessing degree of Bachelor of Arts including Public Administration can be appointed as a Labour Inspector. The basic qualification, thus, for appointment to the post of Labour Inspector would be a degree of Bachelor of Arts including Public Administration.
The shortlisting, thus, resorted to by the Commission cannot be faulted with especially when in the advertisement dated 14.08.2010 itself, special instructions have been inserted in this regard which read as follows:-
"The prescribed essential qualification does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview. The Commission may short list the candidates for interview by holding a written examination or on the basis of 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 C.W.P. NO.7502 OF 2012 -5- in this regard."
Perusal of the above would further clarify the situation i.e. the Commission could resort to shortlisting of the candidates for interview either by holding a written examination or on the basis of rationale criterion to be adopted by the Commission. This is further clarified by the previous sentence that the prescribed essential qualification does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview. The shortlisting of the candidates for interview was to be held keeping in view the essential qualification prescribed which as has been seen above is a Bachelor's degree in Arts including Public Administration. Petitioners were well aware of the fact that the Commission could resort to the process of shortlisting and therefore, they cannot at this stage make a grouse for that.
There can be no doubt with regard to the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that persons possessing the qualifications of Diploma/Degree in Social Welfare and specialisation in Labour Laws shall have preference over persons possessing a degree of Bachelor of Arts including Public Administration of a recognised University or its equivalent. That stage would only come at the time of assessing the suitability of a candidate for the post i.e. the interview. Same is the view of the Supreme Court in the case of Manjit Singh (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioners as also in the case of P.Dalip Kumar (supra). In both judgments shortlisting and the power to do so by the recruiting agency has been approved and therefore, resort to the same by the Commission in the present case especially when the same finds mentioned in the advertisement itself cannot be faulted with.
For the petitioners to claim any benefit out of the judgment on C.W.P. NO.7502 OF 2012 -6- which reliance has been placed by them, they were required to plead and prove that the Commission had not formulated a rationale criterion for shortlisting the candidates or this shortlisting has resulted in reducing the number of candidates to such an extent that the ratio of candidates for the post has been reduced to an extent which is lower than the generally accepted ratio of 3:5 candidates for one post depending upon the number of seats. There being no such pleading nor being any material on record to arrive at such a conclusion, the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners do not help the cause of the petitioners.
In view of the above, finding no merit in these petitions, the same stand dismissed.
Photocopy of the order be placed on the records of the connected case.
25.04.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
adhikari JUDGE
C.W.P. NO.7502 OF 2012 -7-