Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijayinder And Others vs The Punjab Public Service Commission on 24 February, 2011
Author: T.P.S.Mann
Bench: T.P.S.Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No. 329 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision : February 24, 2011
Vijayinder and others
....Appellants
Versus
The Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN
Present : Mr. T.S.Dhindsa, Advocate
for the appellants.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
M.M.KUMAR, J.
1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 9.2.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellants after participating in the selection process are not permitted to challenge the same. For the aforesaid proposition, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Chandra Parkash Tiwari and others v. Shakuntala Shukla and others (2002) 6 SCC 127 holding that the appellants have acquiesced and have rendered themselves dis-entitled to challenge the criteria. LPA No. 329 of 2011(O&M) -2-
2. Mr. Dhindsa, learned counsel for the appellants has again made an effort to challenge Clause (1) under sub heading Overview of the Examination in the prospectus which provides that the candidate equal to thirteen times of the total vacancies determined by the Government under sub-rule (1) of Rule 13-A would qualify for the main competitive examination. According to learned counsel, Clause (4) thereof would be contradictory to Clause (1) which contemplates that person acquiring minimum 40% in individual paper and total 45% marks in aggregate would be eligible. Mr. Dhindsa has maintained that those who have acquired eligibility should have been called for the main examination and condition No.1 is contradictory to condition No.4.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the considered view that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. Firstly, if there was any challenge to be made to Clauses (1) and (4) on the ground that they were contradictory to each other then the appellants should have approached the Court at the time when the prospectus was issued because it was known to everyone that such conditions have been imposed for the examination. Moreover, we see no contradiction in the aforesaid two Clauses because once person with 45% marks in aggregate have qualified then they do not automatically acquire the right to appear in the main examination. If such an interpretation is adopted then the very purpose of holding preliminary examination would be defeated, namely, LPA No. 329 of 2011(O&M) -3- to have limited a number of meritorious candidate to appear in the main test. It is for the aforesaid purpose that Clause (1) has been incorporated to ensure that the zone of consideration is limited to meritorious candidate and, accordingly, a limit of thirteen times of the total vacancies has been fixed. Another reason which weigh with us is that the purpose of Clause (4) is that if inadequate number of candidates have qualified then even thirteen times limit might have been reduced. Therefore, the purpose is not to invite all the eligible candidate to appear in the main examination. The purpose is to firstly ensure the merit and then to restrict their number to a particular limit i.e. thirteen times. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
( M.M.KUMAR )
JUDGE
( T.P.S.MANN )
February 24, 2011 JUDGE
ajay-I