Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuljit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 19 March, 2014
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
CWP No. 19318 of 2012 [1]
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 19318 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.3.2014
Kuljit Singh and others
.. Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Bikramjit Singh Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab.
...
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The petitioners, who were candidates for the post of Master in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 7.5.2011, are before this court aggrieved against the action of the authorities, whereby allegedly the criteria for selection, as was initially notified, was changed during the process of selection.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at the time of issuance of advertisement, criteria was uploaded on the website which, inter-alia, provided that there would be 10% marks for higher qualification in M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. and 10% marks for M.Phil/Ph.D., however, when the merit list was uploaded, a new criteria was shown to have been applied, in terms of which out of 10% marks meant for M.Phil/Ph.D., the same were divided into 5% each for M.Phil and Ph.D. He further submitted that from the additional affidavit filed today in court, it is evident that when the criteria was initially approved, 10% marks were meant for higher qualification for M.A./M.Sc., whereas in the advertisement even M.Ed. was also added. The same amounts to change in criteria, as a result of which the petitioners, who were initially in the provisional merit list, could not find Kumar Manoj 2014.03.26 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 19318 of 2012 [2] place in the merit list finally prepared.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the criteria, which was initially approved, was providing 10% marks for higher qualification and 10% for M.Phil/Ph.D. However, initially the merit was prepared providing 10% marks each for M.Phil/Ph.D. but when the same came to the notice of the authorities, the error was corrected. She further submitted that there was no change in the criteria midstream. In fact, the same was merely clarified in the sense that earlier for M.Phil/Ph.D, 10% marks were provided, which was sought to be clarified. A note was put up on 15.9.2011 providing that M.Phil and Ph.D should be awarded 5% marks each. The same was approved on 29.9.2011 before the first counselling took place on 2.11.2011, hence, there was no change in the criteria, as is sought to be alleged. She further submitted that providing of 10% marks for higher qualification, namely, M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. cannot be said to be erroneous for the reason that all these three are post graduate qualifications. These were mentioned in the advertisement itself. All the applications were processed through Centre for Development of Advanced Computing, a Government of India agency. The provisional merit list was prepared by it, which was based on the applications submitted on-line. As there was error therein, the same was corrected later on. As there was no change in the criteria, as is sought to be alleged, there is no merit in the present petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
While making an effort to make out a case regarding change in the criteria, learned counsel for the petitioners raised two issues-- (i) division of 10% marks provided for M. Phil/ Ph.D. into 5% marks each for two different qualifications and (ii) providing for extra marks even for M.Ed. qualification, which was not initially approved as one of the qualification for which higher marks were to be awarded, though the same was part of the advertisement.
As far as division of 10% marks provided for M. Phil/ Ph.D. is concerned, in my opinion, the same cannot be said to be change in the criteria. The advertisement provided that 10% marks were ear-marked for Kumar Manoj 2014.03.26 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 19318 of 2012 [3] M.Phil/Ph.D. The first counselling was to take place on 2.11.2011. Even much prior thereto, on 15.9.2011 a note was put up to clarify the same, which was approved on 29.9.2011 specifying that M.Phil/ Ph.D., both should have 5% marks each. As both the qualifications are not equal as such, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the authorities in specifying separate marks for both the qualifications. There is no allegation of malafide, as all the candidates having these higher qualifications were to be dealt with in the same manner.
As far as award of marks for higher qualification, namely, M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. is concerned, no doubt in the note on the file, it was mentioned that 10% marks would be for M.A./M.Ed. However, in the criteria, which was uploaded, it was provided that the same would be for M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. as M.A./M.Sc. both are post graduate qualification in different stream and the criteria initially uploaded provided for that, in my opinion, the same also cannot be said to be change in the criteria requiring interference by this court in the present petition.
For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.3.2014 mk Kumar Manoj 2014.03.26 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document