Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajeev Kumar Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 October, 2013
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 19928 of 2010
Date of Decision: October 7, 2013
Rajeev Kumar Sharma
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:- Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Hooda, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
Mr.R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Advocate
Mr.V.S. Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr.H.N. Mehtani, Advocate
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the selection and appointment of respondent No.5 vide order annexure P-7 as Technical Advisor (Sugar) in Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [2] the Haryana State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, respondent No.2, by respondent No.3, the Haryana Public Service Commission, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission'), the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the official respondents to quash the earlier selection and conduct interview afresh and submit recommendations to the Government for appointment of the candidate by associating appropriate subject expert having technical qualification as respondent No.4, the Managing Director of Haryana State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited joined as Technical Advisor having no technical professional qualification in the subject of advertised post.
Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the petition are that respondent No.3 Commission advertised one post of Technical Advisor (Sugar) (Group A) in the Cooperation Department, Haryana on January 16, 2010 with last date as February 16, 2010 with following essential qualifications:-
"5. Essential qualifications:-
i) Graduate/ Post Gradate Degree in Science with 1st Division with Post Graduate Degree or Diploma in Sugar Technology from any Institute in India or abroad.
ii) Knowledge of Hindi/ Sanskrit upto Matric Standard.Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [3]
Experience: i) 7 years experience as Chief Chemist in Sugar Industry for Graduate and 5 years in case of Post Graduate.
ii) Proof of publication of Research/ Technical papers in at least two reputed/ standard publications/ journals.
6. Age: Candidate should not below 35 years and not more than 55 years as on 16.1.2010 i.e. the date of publication of advertisement.
7. Duties:- i) To advise the Cooperative Sugar Mills on Sugar Manufacturing Process.
ii) All technical Advice/ supervision for setting up of new Sugar Mills related to his subject.
iii) To look after distillery, sugar sale and molasses work.
iv) Annual inspection of sugar mills.
v) Distillery work of Panipat Distillery.
Note: The eligibility of candidates with regard to qualifications and experience etc. is to be determined as on 16.1.2010 i.e. the date of publication of advertisement.
2. Incomplete application form i.e. without proof of age and minimum required qualification/ Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [4] experience etc. will be straightway rejected without entering into any correspondence."
Initially, the petitioner, respondent No.5 and another candidate Ram Parshad Mishra were informed that they did not possess requisite experience, however, subsequently on the basis of their representations the four candidates including the petitioner, and two other candidates were interviewed on March 25, 2010. Respondent No.5 was, however, interviewed on April 21, 2010. Respondent No.5 having been selected on the basis of the criteria annexure P-8, the petitioner has challenged the said selection and the validity of the criteria alleging that the criteria had been framed on March 25, 2010 and was tailor-made to give advantage to respondent No.5 after receipt of applications. The criteria which has been adopted for assessing the relative merit of the candidates for selection to the post of Technical Advisor (Sugar) (Group A) in Cooperative Department, Haryana, vide advertisement No.22 of 2009, reads as follows:-
"Total marks of the Viva-voce: 100 marks
1. Personal Achievements 40 marks a. Academic Qualifications
(i) Graduate/ Post Graduate degree in 20 marks Science with 1st Division
(ii) Post Graduate degree or Post Graduate 5 marks Diploma in Sugar Technology from any Institute.
(iii) Ph.D. or any relevant qualification in 05 marks the relevant subject.
b. Experience Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [5] One mark for each completed year of experience in the relevant field after attaining the basic qualification upto the closing date subject to maximum of 05 marks.
c. Co-curricular Activities Published work:
Participation in activities like NCC, 05 marks NSS, Sports (Only National level), Cultural/ Literary/ Scientific/ Social Activity.
OR Published work of high standard in journals of National or International repute. One mark will be given for each publication in International journals.
2. Interview: 60 marks The interview will be conducted through oral discussion and questioning. The questions and discussion will be directed to ascertain personal qualities i.e. knowledge, awareness, intelligence, presentation, expression, poise, bearing, articulation and speaking ability etc. 60 marks are assigned for the interview with the following break-up:-
i) Knowledge, awareness and general 20 marks interest etc.
ii) Intelligence, initiative, decision making, 20 marks expression, presentation etc. Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [6]
iii) Poise, bearing, behaviour, adaptability, 20 marks."
articulation and other qualities.
On the basis of the interview held on March 25, 2010 and April 21, 2010, the candidates had obtained the following marks:-
Sr. Rol Name Date of Personal Interview Tota No. l of the Birth Achievement l No. Candi- Mar date ks Acad Ex Co- Kno Intell Poise emic p. Cur wled igenc beari quali ricul ge e ng ficati ar Awa Initia behav on activ rene tive iour ities/ ss & Decis adapt pub- gene ion abilit lishe ral maki y d inter ng articu wor est expre lation k etc. ssion & prese other ntatio quail-
n etc. ties
1 3 Rajiv 28.6.196 30 5 5 10 11 12 73
Kumar 5
Sharma
(Petitio
ner)
Gupta Sanjay
2013.10.29 12:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [7]
2. 6 Satya- 1.12.195 25 5 3 6 6 6 51
pal 5
Singh
3. 7 Tarikes 8.2.1961 25 5 3 6 5 5 49
h
Chandr
a
4. 1 Ashok 6.6.1961 25 5 5 14 14 13 76
Kumar
Malik
(Respo
ndent
No.5)
On the basis of the marks granted by the Commission and the comparative assessment of the candidates, respondent No.5 was selected as Technical Advisor (Sugar) (Group A). The petitioner had received certain information under the Right to Information Act from the Commission and has challenged the selection of respondent No.5 on the following grounds:-
i) Respondent No.5 had submitted incomplete application without essential proof required in respect of publications of Research/ Technical papers in two reputed standard publications/ journals as referred to in his application form;Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [8]
ii) Respondent No.5 did not fulfill essential qualifications of 7 years experience as Chief Chemist. He had stated to possess 7 years experience as Chief Chemist whereas bio-
data attached alongwith application form annexure P-3 showed that respondent No.5 worked as Chief Chemist only for 3 ½ years. Respondent No.5 had mentioned in his application regarding publications in Sugar Technologies Association of India and Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited, whereas the Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited is not reputed/ standard publication.
The criteria of allocating 20% marks to candidates possessing mere eligibility qualification of graduation/ post graduation, irrespective of candidate being Graduate or Post Graduate in Science has got no nexus to the objective of the fair selection which is required to be achieved to seek a candidate with specialization in the field. Respondent No.5 had been recommended on the basis of photostat copies of the documents submitted Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [9] by him alongwith his application and the entire responsibility for verification of the certificates of respondent No.5 was left to respondent No.2. Seven complaints against the candidates regarding their eligibilities had been received by respondent No.2 but these complaints were ignored. The petitioner in order to establish that he has been rejected on extraneous considerations while determining his comparative merit to respondent No.5 has produced a comparative chart as follows:-
Sr. Qualifications Respondent Petitioner No No.5 Ashok Dr. Rajeev Kumar Sharma Kumar Malik A Academic Graduate in Graduate in Science First Qualifications Science First Division.
Division.
Post Graduate in Science with First Division.
Ph.D. in Science Faculty
in the subject of Sugar
from National Sugar
Institute of Government of
India.
Gupta Sanjay
2013.10.29 12:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 19928 of 2010
[10]
Diploma in Computer
Management.
Post Graduate Post Graduate Diploma in
Diploma in Sugar Technology
Sugar
Technology
B) No. of Papers One Eleven (11) (at the time of
published. interview) and now 12
nos.
C) Advisory/ --- 1. In the panel of Experts Consultancy for Advisory Work of the work Haryana State Federation achievements of Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited.
2. Certificates of commendation from MDs of Cooperative Sugar Mills in Haryana (6 nos.) for Advisory work.
Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [11]
3. Other Certificates of Commendation about Technical Advisory Work in India (4 nos.) Copies of the various certificates/ appreciation certificates etc. are attached alongwith as Annexure P-11 (i) to
(xi) D) Working -- More than 7 years.
experience in
Cooperative
Sector in
Haryana
Gupta Sanjay
2013.10.29 12:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 19928 of 2010
[12]
E) Plant -- 1. Developed a Chemical
Development plant commercially
in the field of feasible using cane wax in
Sugar filter mud as raw material.
Filter mud is a waste bye-
product of sugar industry.
After extraction of wax
and sterols etc. this filter
mud can be used a
potentially high bio-
fertilizer.
Gupta Sanjay
2013.10.29 12:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 19928 of 2010
[13]
F) Products/ -- 1. Developed products
techniques like sugar colour reducer
development thereby increasing shining
and whiteness of sugar
crystal.
2. A new position for
sugarcane preparatory
device has been developed
thereby decreasing the
sugar loss and moisture
percentage in the bagasse
which is used as fuel in
the boilers of sugar
industry.
3. A very low-cost bagasse
dryer has been developed
which helps in decreasing
the moisture percentage in
bagasse and saves the fuel
in sugar industry.
G. Co-curricular
activities
Gupta Sanjay
2013.10.29 12:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 19928 of 2010
[14]
i) Cultural -- i) Best position in
Activity Cultural Programme on
achievements Independence Day (1984-
1985) and 1985-1986.
ii) Best position in Annual
cultural programme
(1985-1986)
iii) Published poems and
proses (stories) in several
newspapers and
magazines, broadcast by
All India Radio
(Akashvani) and attended
All India Symposium
(Kavi Sammelan).
ii) Social Activity -- Received a certificate of achievement bravery from District Magistrate.
iii) Games activity -- Captain of Badminton of
achievement PG College level and
Member, Hockey and
Cricket Teams.
Gupta Sanjay
2013.10.29 12:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 19928 of 2010
[15]
iv) Scientific -- i) Examiner, National
Activity Sugar Institute
achievements (Government of India)
ii) Member, R&D Sub
Committee on
Manufacturing process,
STAI.
iii) Ex-member, ICUMSA
National Committee.
ICUMSA is an
international council for
uniform methods of sugar
analysis.
iv) Member, National
Executive Council,
STAI."
iii) The allocation of 5% weightage to Ph.D. in the relevant subject while allocating 20% marks to a candidate having basic qualification of graduation in Science is arbitrary and discriminatory. The allocation of 5 marks to a candidate possessing co-
curricular activities or publication of Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [16] technical and research papers is also arbitrary and unconstitutional since achievement in two different fields restricts rights of the achiever to get benefit qua achievement. Allocation of 60% marks for interview for knowledge, awareness etc, intelligence, initiative etc, poise, bearing etc. is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved for appointment to the post of Technical Advisor (Sugar) (Group A) Department of Cooperation, Haryana.
iv) Respondent No.4 who was associated as subject expert does not have any technical qualification of the subject of Sugar technology and is merely a Master of Arts.
In view of the abovesaid illegalities, the petitioner claimed that the selection and appointment of respondent No.5 is vitiated as he did not fulfill the requisite eligibility conditions and is required to be set aside. Petitioner claims that he being next candidate as per marks awarded, should be appointed.
Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [17]
Respondent No.3 Commission has taken up a preliminary objection that the petitioner had taken calculated chance and appeared in the interview but he has challenged the criteria because the result of interview was not palatable to him. He having already participated in the selection process cannot turn around to challenge the same after having not been selected. It has been clarified that initially letters were issued to petitioner as well as respondent No.5 that they did not fulfill the qualification and eligibility but subsequently both were permitted to participate after accepting their clarifications. It has been denied that the criteria of allocating interview marks is violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner or it was unreasonable and tailor-made to benefit any candidate.
The selected candidate- respondent No.5 has filed a written statement to highlight his merit claiming that he fulfilled all the essential conditions prescribed in the advertisement and that after having been held eligible, he was recommended by the Commission and offered appointment. He is B.Sc. with 66.2% marks and has done ANSI (Sugar Technology) with 62% marks from National Sugar Institute Kanpur in 1984. He has 25 years experience. He has worked from 1985 to 1996 with M/s Gangeshwar Ltd. Deoband (Triveni Group) , a 10,000/- TCD Plant in different capacities as Manufacturing Chemist for 2 ½ years, Senior Chemist for 3 years, Deputy Chemist for 3 years and also as Chief Chemist (Head of Sugar Manufacturing Division) for 3 years. He had joined Indo -Gulf Industries as Chief Chemist (Head of Sugar Manufacturing Division). He worked as Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [18] Executive Vice President- Production Head of the Sugar Manufacturing Division in Birla Group from March 1996 to May 1997. He joined M/s Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited and was drawing monthly stipend of US $ 3200 per month in the capacity as Senior Manager (Production) Head of Sugar Manufacturing Department from 1997-2006. He also worked as Deputy General Manager (Works) from 2006 till joining in Sugar fed and had remained associated with the sugar manufacturing process while discharging functions as Deputy General Manager (Works). He has experience of Carbonation process, Sulphitation process, Defecation process as well as Defco-melt phosphotation process in the production of High Pol Raw Sugar, Plantation White Sugar and Refined Sugar. In order to refute the allegation of the petitioner that he does not have any research paper to his credit, it was claimed that respondent No.5 has published his papers i.e. "Mills Sanitation" in STAI; "Improvement of Evaporator Performance" at SEOUL published in USTA; paper titled "Co-generation - A Review" in USTA and "Energy Audit for Sugar Industry" published in USTA, while Sugar Technologists of Association of India (STAI) is recognized by the Ministry of Science and Technology. Respondent No.5 averred that the publications were published in Journals which is of National Level being published by Uganda Sugar Cane Technologists Association. He claimed that he has actual, practical and real experience of working in the sugar mills. He has further highlighted that the said post was earlier advertised in 2008 wherein the petitioner and respondent No.5 were Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [19] interviewed by the Committee comprising of then Managing Director, Sugar fed, Consultant, Sugar Technology National Federation of Cooperative Sugar Factories Ltd, New Delhi. Even in 2008, respondent No.5 was most suitable candidate for the job but since the post was Class I post, it was directed to be filled up by Haryana Public Service Commission as such the appointment could not be offered to respondent No.5. Now the different set of members have selected and appointed respondent No.5 on the basis of comparative merit.
The petitioner has filed replication reiterating the averments in the writ petition sticking to his plea that respondent No.5 though did not fulfill the essential conditions of eligibility has been wrongly selected. The criteria adopted, is illegal. The petitioner reiterated that a person who did not possess any qualification in the field of Sugar Technology was invited as subject expert. In the replication filed by the petitioner he has submitted that he is entitled to challenge the criteria as the criteria was disclosed only on supply of information under the Right to Information Act to him on October 1, 2010.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered all the grounds on the basis of which the selection of respondent No.5 has been challenged. As per the advertisement, a Technical Advisor is required to advise the Cooperative Sugar Mills on Sugar manufacturing process, to render technical advice for setting up of new sugar mills. He is also required to look after distillery, sugar sale and molasses work; annual Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [20] inspection of the sugar mills and distillery work of Panipat Distillery is also required to be seen by the Technical Advisor (Sugar) in the Cooperation Department, Haryana. Taking into consideration the duties which are required to be performed, the essential educational qualifications and experience has been prescribed.
The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that that respondent No.5 had initially been found ineligible but by writing a letter to him has been selected subsequently. The said fact, as per counsel for the petitioner, is indicative of the unfair selection.
In this context, it is not out of place to observe here that even petitioner was also initially held ineligible and he was intimated regarding his ineligibility. Both petitioner and respondent No.5 and other candidates after having satisfied the official respondents regarding their eligibility were permitted to participate in the selection process for determining the comparative merit. On the basis of the criteria framed and taking into consideration the requirement of the Cooperation Department, respondent No.5 has been selected. As the petitioner is similarly circumstanced as respondent No.5, so far as the receipt of information regarding ineligibility is concerned, once the petitioner and respondent No.5 have got an opportunity to contest in the process of consideration of comparative merit, it is not permissible to enter into the controversy that initially ineligibility letters were issued to the candidates.
Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [21]
The second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that whether criteria annexure P-8 / III splitting marks of viva voce for personal achievements and interview in the ratio of 40:60, as referred hereinbefore, was tailor-made to give benefit to respondent No.5. It is also contended that prescribing 20% marks for graduate as well as for post graduate is unreasonable.
I have considered the said contention and I am of the opinion that besides 20 marks, 10 marks had been earmarked for higher qualification; 5 marks are earmarked for Post-graduate degree holder or post Graduate Diploma holder in Sugar Technology from any institute. Another 5 marks have been earmarked for Ph.D. or any relevant qualification in the relevant subject. I have carefully gone through the original record of the Commission which indicates that the petitioner has been awarded 30 marks for his academic qualifications whereas respondent No.5 has been awarded only 25 marks for academic qualification, implying thereby that the petitioner was able to get more marks for his higher qualification being Ph.D. The comparative merit indicates that both petitioner and respondent No.5 have been awarded equal marks for the experience and co-curricular activities but respondent No.5 was able to steal a march over the petitioner by getting 4, 3 and 1 mark more for knowledge, awareness and general interest, intelligence, initiative decision making expression presentation etc and poise bearing behaviour adaptability articulation and other qualities, respectively. The petitioner having already secured more marks in Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [22] educational qualification cannot challenge that marks allocated for educational qualification is arbitrary. On the basis of various traits having been examined by the interview Committee, respondent No.5 has been granted 8 marks more than the petitioner in the interview. It is also an admitted fact that earlier also, respondent No.5 had been selected on merit but selection having not been done by the Commission being Class I post, the process of selection had to be undertaken by the Commission. A Constitutional Authority is presumed to be well-versed in determining the merit of a candidate for the post which is sought to be filled knowing well about the requirements of the post. No extraordinary exceptional circumstances have been shown by the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to enter into the disputed question of facts regarding the assessment of the papers published by respondent No.5 and the quality and technicality of the conference papers of respondent No.5.
I have considered the comparative chart prepared by the petitioner. The said comparative chart is the self-assessment of the petitioner in his favour without considering the work experience and the experience of respondent No.5 in the field of Sugar manufacture and the scientific activities achievements. The criteria annexure P-8/III has been applied equally to all the candidates as such the petitioner cannot claim violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [23]
Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an objection regarding the selection process on the ground that more marks have been earmarked for oral interview which is not permissible. He has argued that in view of the judgment in Ashok Kumar Yadav and others Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 454 and D.V. Bakshi and others Vs. Union of India and others, (1993) 3 SCC 663 and Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (1981) 4 SCC 159, allocation of more marks for interview is not permissible.
I have considered the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that as the selection in the present case was solely based upon the maturity and work experience and as the selection was meant for a technical post providing 60 marks further split into in the ratio of 20, 20, 20 marks for different traits of personality, is not unreasonable if seen in context to the judgment of the Apex Court in Kiran Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2000 (4) RSC 438 wherein referring to various judgments pertaining to allocation of higher marks for interview it was held that prescribing of higher percentage of marks for interview, can be held to be bad and frowned upon by the Courts when selection is on the basis of both oral interview as well as written test. Where oral interview alone has been the criteria for selection/ appointment/ promotion to any post in senior positions, the question of higher percentage of marks for interview does not arise. In the said judgment, it was held that at times for certain posts only interview was considered to be the best Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [24] method of selection when no written test was prescribed for selection/ promotion. In Dr.Kehsav Ram Pal Vs. U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, Allahabad and others, (1986) 1 SCC 671, referring to the view taken by the Apex Court in A. Peeriakaruppan etc Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (1971) 1 SCC 38 and Ajay Hasia and others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, (1981) 1 SCC 722, holding that importance attached to the interview test must be minimal, the Apex Court had observed that "in the case of services to which recruitment had necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview test might be the only way, subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied. In context to said persons it was observed that subjecting such persons to a written examination might yield unfruitful and negative results, apart from it being an act of cruelty to those persons.
In Anzar Ahmad Etc. Vs. State of Bihar and others, (1994) 1 SCC 150, the Commission had allocated 50% marks for academic qualification and 50% marks for interview for the post of Unani Medical Officers. The selection method by interview alone was held to be valid. In A.P. State Financial Corporation Vs. C.M. Ashok Raju and others, (1994) 5 SCC 359, selection of candidates by interview, without a written test was held to be valid by the Apex Court. In the said case, the posts of Managers of the Financial Corporation were to be filled by interview without a written test. Similarly in Siya Ram Vs. Union of India and others, (1998) 2 SCC 566, rules regarding selection for the post of Chief Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [25] Personnel Inspector in Railways on the basis of only oral test in the form of viva voce and no written examination was held to be valid. In the said case out of 100 marks 50 were allocated for professional ability without prescribing any norms. The Apex Court held that at times for certain posts only interview was considered to be the best method of selection.
In view of the ratio of the above said judgments, the criteria for demarcating 60 marks for interview and 40 marks for academic qualifications cannot be held to be bad especially when a candidate for the post of Technical Advisor in a particular subject was to be selected.
Even otherwise, the Commission is considered to have inherent jurisdiction to adopt any device, mode or method in effective discharge of functions. Normally High Court will not have jurisdiction to review its assessment unless there is apparent arbitrariness. In the present case I have gone through the mechanism exercised by the Commission for the purpose of selection. In this context, a reference can be made to Kamal Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 Punjab, page 118.
The contention of the petitioner that the subject expert in the Selection Committee did not possess any professional technical qualification in the subject of sugar technology, has also been considered by this Court.
Taking into consideration the nature of the job which mainly require expertise in the supervision for setting up of new sugar mills and to look after the distillery, sugar sale and molasses work which does not fall in Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [26] the category of any super-technical nature, respondent No.4 who is holding a post of bureaucrat working for the Federation of the Cooperative Sugar Mills, cannot be said to be ignorant of the requirements of the Corporation. The work experience of respondent No.5 for having worked as manufacturing Chemist and having worked in sugar manufacturing unit in Uganda with technical work experience of different scientific process as mentioned in his curriculum vitae appear to be sufficient enough to make him eligible to be considered for the selection. Taking into consideration the nature of the work required to be done by the petitioner, the status of respondent No.4 has Managing Director of the Corporation is considered to be sufficient enough to judge the capabilities and capacities of respondent No.5. No fault can be found in the constitution of the Selection Committee by including respondent No.4 as an expert.
In view of the totality of the above said circumstances, there does not appear to be any fault in the criteria adopted and the selection of respondent No.5 made as Technical Advisor (Sugar) (Group A) in the Federation.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
October 7, 2013 (M.M.S.BEDI)
sanjay JUDGE
Gupta Sanjay
2013.10.29 12:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh