Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarun Rathee vs State Of Haryana And Others on 30 November, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 30.11.2012
CWP No. 23557 of 2012
Tarun Rathee ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 23528 of 2012
Varun Sharma and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 23583 of 2012
Vikram Singh Nehra and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Haryana and another ..... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. Sourabh Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner
in CWP No. 23557 of 2012.
Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioners
in CWP No. 23528 of 2012.
Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners
in CWP No. 23583 of 2012.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
By this order, I propose to decide three writ petitions, i.e. CWP Nos. 23528, 23557 and 23583 of 2012, as common questions of facts and law are involved in these cases and were heard together. In these writ petitions, CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -2- petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of the notice published by the Haryana Public Service Commission (in short 'the Commission') on 13.11.2012 of shortlisting to the candidates for interview for the post of Assistant District Attorney (Group B) in Prosecution Department, Haryana, dated 9.11.2012, prescribing minimum cut-off marks in the degree of Bachelor of Laws Professional/L.LM. degree for each category of candidates as being contrary to the method of shortlisting prescribed in the advertisement No. 4 dated 2.11.2011, whereby applications were invited for filling up of these posts. For brevity, facts are being primarily taken from CWP No. 23557 of 2012.
In pursuance to the advertisement, issued by the Commission, dated 2.11.2011, whereby applications were invited for recruitment to 49 temporary posts of Assistant District Attorneys (Group B) in Prosecution Department, Haryana, petitioner submitted his application. A corrigendum dated 14.8.2012 was thereafter issued, increasing the number of temporary posts to 136 and the eligibility with regard to age, qualification and experience etc., was to be determined on the last date of submission of the applications to the Commission which was fixed as 30.8.2012. Candidates, who had already applied and eligible otherwise, were not required to apply again. The essential qualifications mentioned in the advertisement dated 2.11.2011 were as follows :-
"(i) Degree of Bachelor of Laws (Professional) of a recognized University.
(ii) Should have enrolled as an Advocate with Bar Council.
CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -3-
(iii) Hindi/Sanskrit up to Matric Standard OR 10+2/ B.A/ M.A with Hindi as one of subjects."
In the advertisement, it was specifically mentioned that mere possession of essential minimum qualifications would not entitle a candidate to be called for interview and Commission may restrict the candidates for interview to a reasonable limit on the basis of qualification and experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement or by holding screening test or any method devised by the Commission where the number of applications received is large and it is not convenient or possible for the Commission to interview all the candidates.
On receipt of the applications by the Commission, which are stated to be 27000 for the posts of Assistant District Attorneys, the Commission on 9.11.2012 took a decision to shortlist the candidates in the respective categories for interview on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in advertised essential academic qualification, i.e. degree of Bachelor of Law(Professional) of a recognized University on percentage basis. The minimum cut-off marks in degree of Bachelor of Laws Professional/L.LM degree for each category was published on 13.11.2012 which is as under :-
"Sr. No. Category % of Marks in Bachelor of Laws
(Professional)/LLM
1. General 60%
2. Scheduled Castes of Haryana 58%
3. Backward Classes of Haryana 58%
4. ESM of Haryana 53%
5. PH of Haryana 52%
Note I:- In case a candidate of General Category possesses degree of LLM with 60% marks and above, SC/BC of Haryana with 58% marks and above, ESM of Haryana with 53% marks and above and PH of Haryana with 52% marks and above irrespective of his CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -4- percentage of marks in Bachelor of Laws (Professionals), he/she would be considered for interview."
This decision of the respondent-Commission stands challenged in these writ petitions by the candidates who possess the minimum essential qualification for applying for appointment to the post of Assistant District Attorney, but do not possess the minimum cut-off marks, fixed by the Commission for shortlisting the candidates, to be called for interview for the post in question.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the resort to shortlisting of the candidates by the Commission on the basis of percentage of marks in the Graduation and Post Graduation level is contrary to the advertised procedure for shortlisting by the Commission. This procedure is arbitrary and unreasonable as this would deprive the candidates of a fair chance of competing which would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The minimum cut-off percentage of marks cannot be resorted to as a benchmark for shortlisting the candidates as the candidates belong to different Universities, Colleges and Institutions, where different marking methods/pattern, syllabus and criteria is adopted for granting marks to the candidates and there is every possibility of disparity in the marks obtained by the candidates and putting them together and fixing an uniform cut-off percentage for all candidates would not be just and equitable, although the minimum qualification prescribed by it (Commission) is same. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed by the counsel upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Priya Gupta Versus State of Chhatishgarh and others, 2012(3) SCT 231.
CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -5- It has been contended that the Commission had all through been resorting to the process of written test and interview for selection to the post of Assistant District Attorney. In the last selection conducted in the year 2008-09, written examination was conducted for shortlisting the candidates for interview. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav Versus State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 454 has held that candidates three times the number of vacancies should be called for interview on the basis of marks obtained by them in the written examination. Even this mandate has not been complied with by the respondents as by resorting to the shortlisting of the candidates as they have called 1360 candidates for shortlisting, out of 27000 applicants, which is 10 times the number of posts advertised, i.e. 136. Apart from violating the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which limits the number of candidates for interview, i.e., three times the number of vacancies, the Commission gets more leverage for exercising its discretion in an arbitrary manner and manipulate the selection. This action of the respondents is, thus, not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. Although, the petitioners are eligible for consideration for appointment to the post, but by resorting to this process of shortlisting, they have been denied an opportunity to participate in the selection process which is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
An argument has been raised that even for shortlisting, the Commission had itself stated in the advertisement that the shortlisting would be on the basis of qualification and experience, but has only taken the basis of qualification and no weightage has been given to the experience. Thus, the CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -6- process of shortlisting, resorted to by the Commission, deserves to be struck down. Prayer has been made for allowing the writ petitions.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records of the case.
The only question which is to be answered in the present set of writ petitions is whether the decision of the Commission to shortlist the candidates for interview on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in the essential advertised qualification for each category is in accordance with law or not ?
The competence, authority and jurisdiction of the Commission to resort to shortlisting of the candidates for the purpose of interview has not been disputed by the petitioners. What has been challenged is the process for shortlisting and the decision for the said purpose has been challenged to be arbitrary, unjust and violative of the advertisement dated 2.11.2011, issued by the Commission, vide which the applications were called for. Before delving into this question, it would be appropriate at this stage to refer to the clause which is part of the advertisement, according to which, the Commission put to notice the candidates that the process of shortlistng can be effected by the Commission. The same reads as follows :-
" 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 CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -7- qualifications and experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement or by holding a screening test or any method devised by the Commission."
A perusal of the above would show that mere possession of the minimum prescribed essential qualification would not be enough for a candidate to guarantee him to be called for interview. In case the number of applications received in response to the advertisement were large and it was not convenient or possible for the Commission to interview all the applicants, it could restrict number of candidates for interview to a reasonable limit. The basis for shortlisting was also indicated, according to which, it could be qualification and experience which could be higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement or by holding a written test or any method devised by the Commission. The discretion was retained by the Commission itself to resort to a method which it may devise or adopt for the process of shortlisting of the candidates. Thus, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that shortlisting could only be done by holding a screening test or on the basis of qualification and experience taken together only is totally misplaced and an effort has been made to read into and dilute the discretion which was retained by the Commission to itself.
It is by now settled by various judicial verdicts that the recruiting agency can evolve its own criteria for selection in the absence of any statutory mandate, limiting such criteria. If the process of selection and the criteria is provided under the statutory Rules, the same cannot be deviated from by the recruiting authority. No statutory Rules/Instructions has been referred to by the petitioners which would prescribe a criteria for selection or shortlisting of CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -8- the candidates. In the absence of the same, the discretion is that of the Commission to evolve its own process of shortlisting and devise its own method for the same. The power of judicial review, no doubt is available to the Court, but that jurisdiction is limited and the Court can only interfere with such decision of the recruiting/appointing authority if the same was illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or was irrational and that too to the extent that it was in outrageous defiance of logic or moral standards. Interference by the Court would also be permissible in case such a decision is totally arbitrary, unjust and based on malafides. If these traits are absent, the Court would not interfere in the exercise of discretion by the competent authority in laying down the procedure and criteria for selection or shortlisting for restricting the candidates for a reasonable limit.
In the case of Anu Radha Versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) SCT 477, this Court has upheld the decision of the Commission to select Headmistresses on the basis of interview alone. While dealing with this aspect, reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia Versus Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the oral interview was not satisfactory and should not be relied upon as exclusive test but should be only additional or supplementary test for assessing the caliber of the candidates. This decision was considered in Lila Dhar Versus State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 1777, wherein it was observed that in Ajay Hasia's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with admissions which principle would not be applicable to the selection to judicial service. Awarding of marks under different heads could lead to distorted picture while CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -9- totality of impression may give more accurate picture and there can be no magic formula in these maters and the Court cannot sit in judgment over the methods of marking, resorted to by the interview bodies, unless they are based on oblique motives. This view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Parkash Gupta Versus The State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2004) 6 SCC 786 and P. Mohanan Pillai Versus State of Kerala and others, (2007) 9 SCC 497. Judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra), on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioners, was also considered by a Division Bench of this Court and while referring to the subsequent judgment in the case of Anzar Ahmed Versus State of Bihar, (1994) 1 SCC 150, it was observed that the principles laid down in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra) was held to be not inflexible one particularly when interview was the only basis of selection.
Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chhattar Pal Versus State of Haryana, 1999 (3) SCT 157 wherein similar issue was involved, when the Commission resorted to shortlisting of the candidates for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Economics and challenge was to the criteria fixed by the Commission, it was held in paras 8 and 9 as follows :-
"8. The challenge to the jurisdiction of the Commission to frame the criteria for shortlisting the candidates to be called for viva voce deserves to be rejected because it is a well established proposition of law that the recruiting authority is not bound to invite for selection all those who apply for recruitment in pursuance of the advertisement and who fulfil the essential qualifications and that the competent authority can evolve appropriate mechanism to call a limited CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -10- number of candidates for selection. Reference in this connection can appropriately be made to the following decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court :-
i) Ashok Kumar Yadav and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1987 SC 454;
ii) V.J. Thomas and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1985 SC 1055;
iii)S.B. Mathur and others v. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and others, AIR 1988 SC 2073;
iv)The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Dalip and another, JT 1993 (2) SC 138;
v) Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another, 1995 (1) SCT 50 (SC) : AIR 1995 SC 77;
vi)Union of India and another v. T. Sundararaman and others, 1997 (2) SCT 810 (SC) : JT 1997 (5) SC 48 and
vii)Dr. Lovekesh Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1998 (1) RSJ 566.
9. Thus, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the respondent-Commission could not have resorted to the method of shortlisting and thereby exclude the petitioner from the zone of candidates found eligible to be called for viva voce." In Chattar Pal and another Versus State of Haryana and another, 2010 (4) SCT 507, in a similar situation, this Court in paras 7 to 9 held as follows :-
"7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised only one issue. According to him the advertisement prescribed the selection by written test followed by interview, whereas the respondent no.2 by issuing the short listing criteria has done away with the written test CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -11- and by adopting the cut of marks in the qualifying examination and the candidates have been called for interview. According to him such a recourse is impermissible in law and is violative of the conditions of the advertisement. The advertisement dated 7.2.2008 has prescribed the minimum qualification for the purpose of selection i.e. Matric 1st Division and Higher Secondary/10+2/Vocational/Graduation or equivalent and Hindi/Sanskrit up to Matric standard with age limit between 17 to 40 years. There is one stipulation in the advertisement under the caption "Special Instructions"
which deals with the short listing of the candidates for purposes of interview. The said condition is reproduced hereunder:-
" Special Instructions:
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 a rational criterion to be adopted by the commission. The decision of the commission in all matters relating to acceptance or rejection on 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 in this regard."
8. On the basis of the aforesaid special instructions, it is sought to be contended that the selection is to be made on the basis of the written test followed by the interview. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in utter breach of the aforesaid conditions written examination has not been held and to the contrary the short listing has been made on the basis of the cut of points in the qualifying examination for purposes of holding interview of the candidates. From the reading of the aforesaid condition of advertisement notice, it is evident that the Commission has been conferred with the power to adopt the short listing of candidates for interview by holding a CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -12- written examination or on the basis of rational criteria to be adopted by the Commission; meaning thereby the Commission is competent to adopt the short listing criteria either by holding a written examination or by any other rational or fair method. There is no stipulation in the advertisement which inter alia provides the mode of selection by written test followed by the interview, nor there is any statutory rule enjoining upon the selection body a duty to make selection by holding a written examination and interview. Respondent No. 2 has notified the method of making selection i.e on the basis of the qualifications and interview. In view of the large number of candidates the Commission has adopted the short listing criteria for summoning the candidates for interview by introducing cut of points in the qualifying examination by adopting percentage of marks multiplied by 0.58 at the matric level in addition 1 point for higher secondary and 2 points for graduation and above. The final selection is to be made on the basis of the academic qualification for which 60 marks have been allocated viva voce 30 marks, total 90 marks. The merit will be determined accordingly.
9. There is no condition to compulsorily hold written test for selection. Thus, the very basis of challenge to Annexures P-6 and P-7 is non-existent and imaginary. It is further contended that since in the advertisement the selection was to be made only on the basis of the qualifying marks, short listing is impermissible. As noticed above, the advertisement itself permits short listing. Short listing on the basis of the qualifying examination is one of the recognized and established mode of selection, where the large number of candidates apply and has received the approval of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In case of State of Haryana Vs. Subhash Chander CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -13- Marwaha and others reported as 1973 (2) SLR 137 a similar question fell for consideration of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the advertisement for selection to the judicial service in the State of Haryana minimum 45% marks were prescribed for qualifying the written examination. The High Court communicated the State Govt. to select candidates securing more than 55% marks in the examination. Accordingly, selection was made of the candidates who secured more than 55% marks in the examination which resulted in non-fulfilment of all the advertised vacancies. Out of 15 advertised vacancies only 7 candidates were appointed. The candidates who ranked 8,9 and 13 filed a writ petition seeking a direction for their appointment. While considering the issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
" It was, however, contended by Dr. Singhvi on behalf of the respondents that since rule 8 of Part C makes candidates who obtained 45 per cent or more in the competitive examination eligible for appointment, the State Government had no right to introduce a new rule by which they can restrict the appointments to only those who have scored not less than 55%. It is contended that the State Government have acted arbitrarily in fixing 55 per cent as the minimum for selection and this is contrary to the rule referred to above. The argument has no force. Rule 8 is a step in the preparation of a list of eligible candidates with minimum qualifications who may be considered for appointment. The list is prepared in order of merit. The one higher in rank is deemed (1) [1962] (2) Suppl. S.C.R. 144. 171 to be more meritorious than the one who is lower in rank. It could never be said that one who tops the list is equal in merit to the one who,, is at the bottom of the list. Except that they are all mentioned in one list, each one of them stands on a separate level of competence as compared with another. That is why rule 10(ii), Part C speaks of "selection for appointment". Even as there is no constraint on the State Government in respect of the number of appointments to be made, there is no constraint on the Government fixing a higher score of marks for the purpose of selection. In a case where appointments are made by selection from a number of eligible candidates it is open to the Government with a view to maintain high-standards of competence to fix a CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -14- score which is much higher than the one required for mere eligibility. As shown in the letter of the Chief Secretary already referred to, they fixed a minimum of 55% for selection as they had done on a previous occasion. There is nothing arbitrary in fixing the score of' 55% for the purpose of selection, because that was the view of the High Court also previously intimated to the Punjab Government on which the Haryana Government thought fit to act. that the Punjab Government later on fixed a lower score is no reason for the Haryana, Government to change their mind. This is essentially a matter of administrative policy and if the Haryana State Government think that in the interest of judicial competence persons securing less than 55% of marks in the competitive examination should not be selected for appointment, those who get less than 55% have no right to claim that the selections be made of also those candidates who obtained less than the minimum fixed by the State Government. In our view the High Court was in error in thinking. that the State Government had somehow contravened rule 3 of Part C"."
In the case of Narender and others Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission, 2012 (2) SCT 225, where again, as in the present case, Commission has resorted to shortlisting of the candidates for interview. In paras 15 to 17, it was held as follows :-
"15. In fact, it is an administrative decision taken by the Selection Board to fix a criteria for shortlisting the candidates. The test to see the validity of such a administrative decision and the Court's jurisdiction to interfere in such administrative decisions is by now well settled. Such administrative decisions are generally and normally tested on the touchstone of well known Wednesbury principles in this Country as well as in England. The position of administrative law in this regard can be summarized to say that to judge the validity of any administrative order or statutory discretion, normally the Wednesbury test is to be applied to find out if the decision was illegal or suffered from procedural improprieties or was one which no sensible decision CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -15- maker, could on the material before him, and within the frame work of law, have arrived at. The job of the Court is to consider whether relevant material had been taken into account or whether any irrelevant matter has been taken into account or whether the action was bonafide. The Courts can also consider whether such a decision was absurd or perverse but the Courts can not and would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the Administrator amongst the various alternatives open to him nor can the Court substitute its decision to that of the Administrator.
16. The Courts do not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or was irrational in the sense that it was in outrageous defiance of logic or moral standards. The position in administrative law, where no fundamental freedoms are involved, in our Country is that the Courts/Tribunals will only play a secondary roll while the primary judgment as to the reasonableness will remain with the executive or the administrative authority. The secondary judgement of the Court is to find if the executive or the administrative authority has reasonably arrived at its decision as the primary authority. On the other hand, in a case effecting fundamental freedom, the Courts will apply the principle of proportionality and assume the primary roll to decide in an appropriate case where such action is alleged to offend fundamental freedoms.
17. Analyzing the action of respondent-Board in these parameters, it can very well be said that while adopting this mode for shortlisting the candidates, only relevant factors have been taken into consideration and no irrelevant factor has percolated into the decision. It can also not be said that such a decision could not have been CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -16- reasonably arrived at. There is no allegation that the action is not a bonafide one. There were choices before the respondent-Board and it was open to it to decide upon the choice and it would not be for this Court to substitute its view."
And thereafter proceeded to hold that the very object of the selection to choose the best and if the selecting authority adopts fair and rational criteria of shortlisting the candidates to restrict to their number for consideration, the action cannot be assailed on the ground of arbitrariness or deviation from the prescribed qualification. The prescribed minimum qualification remains the same and any person who possesses the minimum qualification cannot claim absolute right of selection/appointment. It is only the eligibility for entering in the competition. The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed.
In the light of the above judgments and the law as laid down therein, all questions raised by the petitioners stand answered against them, except one where it has been said that different Universities, Colleges and Institutions have different marking pattern syllabus and weightage for granting marks to the students and, therefore, they cannot be equated which leads to disparity amongst the candidates who otherwise possess minimum qualification. This cannot be made the basis for challenging the shortlisting, resorted to by the respondent-Commission, as all the candidates were put to notice by the respondent-Commission and such a process could be resorted to where shortlisting can be done on the basis of qualification to restrict the number of candidates for interview to a reasonable limit. In any case, the minimum standard is maintained by all the institutions and, therefore, cannot CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -17- be said to be an arbitrary, unreasonable or unjust action on the part of the Commission to fix a minimum prescribed cut-off percentage for a category for shortlisting for interview.
The judgment relied upon by the petitioners in the case of Priya Gupta (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as those observations as have been mentioned in para-30 of that judgment were for admission to the medical colleges which was a case where the management committee of the college had resorted to violating the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with a malafide intention to benefit a few as admissions were given by the committee out of favouritism and the arbitrariness was writ large which cannot be said to be present in this case.
An argument has been raised that shortlisting could only be resorted to by the respondents on the basis of qualification and experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement only and while resorting to the shortlisting, Commission had only limited it to qualification alone without taking into consideration the experience which was mandatory as per its own notice to the candidates. This contention of the petitioners again cannot be accepted as it was quoted therein as instances could be taken into consideration by the Commission for shortlisting, but the ultimate discretion was retained by the Commission by holding a screening test or any method devised by the Commission. That apart, counsel for the petitioners could not refer to any statutory requirement which prescribe a minimum experience for a candidate to be eligible for appointment to the post. In the absence of there being any minimum experience prescribed for a candidate to be eligible for appointment to a post, non-grant of weightage to the experience CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -18- for shortlisting cannot said to be not in consonance with the advertisement when the discretion is vested with the Commission in this regard. Had there been some statutory mandate to this effect with regard to the candidate requiring to possess some minimum experience, this contention could have had some weightage. But in the present case, the same is found to be without any basis and, therefore, this ground also fails.
Another argument has been raised by the counsel for the petitioners that the minimum essential academic qualification prescribed for the post is degree of Bachelor of Laws (Professional) of a recognized University. However, resorting to the shortlisting even candidates, who possess minimum cut-off marks which are prescribed for the degree of Bachelor of Laws (Professional), have been equated with L.LM degree and the same percentage of marks are fixed for the said degree which cannot be sustained. This contention of the counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted as no prejudice is caused to the petitioners as by making the candidates with L.LM degree with the same percentage of marks as a candidate who possesses a degree in Bachelor of Laws (Professional), the petitioners would not be adversely affected. On the contrary, this action of the Commission is in consonance with the Haryana Government Instructions dated 16.6.1979 which provides that if a candidate possesses higher qualification in the same line and has passed such higher qualification in the same division or clause as prescribed for the minimum qualification applicable to a particular post, then he/she shall be considered eligible for that post. The principles laid down therein would be applicable and would justify action of the respondent-Commission. That apart, in the shortlisting process, which CWP No. 23557 of 2012 and connected cases -19- was provided in the advertisement itself, stated that qualifications higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement can also be taken into consideration for shortlisting. This contention also does not, therefore, carry any weight and stands rejected.
In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case files.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 30.11.2012 sjks