Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita Devi And Others vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission And ... on 11 March, 2014
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
CWP No.16724 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.16724 of 2011
Date of Decision: 11.03.2014
Sunita Devi and others ....Petitioners
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another ....Respondents
BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Amit Kumar, D.A.G., Haryana
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate
for respondents No.3 to 10, 12, 15 to 20, 22 and 25 to 31.
Mr. Gourav Jain, Advocate
for respondents No.11, 14, 21 and 24.
*****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
An advertisement was published for inviting applications of 29 posts of Sanitary Inspectors under various municipal committees by Haryana Staff Selection Commission (here-in-after referred to as `the Commission'), wherein, the essential qualification was Matric with Diploma in Sanitary Inspector and Hindi or Sanskrit up to Matric standard. The age prescribed for the said post was between 17 to 40 years. It was also mentioned that the Commission may short list the candidates for interview by holding a written examination or on the basis of criteria to be adopted by the Commission.
The petitioners were having requisite minimum qualification and hence, they applied in response to the advertisement. The result of selected candidates was declared on 08.09.2010 and total 33 candidates were declared pass but the petitioners were kept in the waiting list. As per criteria, 50 marks were for educational qualifications and 25 marks were for viva voce/interview.
Kaur Gurpreet2014.03.18 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.16724 of 2011 2
The petitioners sought an information under the Right to Information Act as to how many marks were allotted to the petitioners and other selected candidates as well as qualifications/experience of selected candidates. The petitioners found themselves to be more meritorious viz-a- viz the selected candidates, still they were not selected by the Commission. The selection of respondents No.3 to 31 has been challenged in the present petition by raising various arguments.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the selection was made in an arbitrary manner as the marks of viva-voce/interview were more than 20% of the total marks as 50 marks were for academic qualification and 25 marks were for viva-voce. Only because of difference of marks in viva-voce, the petitioners have not been selected, whereas, the majority of the selected candidates are either less qualified or are having less experience, however, more marks have been given in the interview to them. Learned counsel also submits that the selection has been made not only in a biased manner as majority of the candidates belong to a particular area. Learned counsel further submits that the selection is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Sri Jyotish Kaiborta and others vs The State of Assam and others 2009(4) SCC 516 as well as the judgment of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in case of Narinder Verma vs State of Jammu and Kashmir 2001(4) SCT 41, in support of his contentions.
Written statements on behalf of respondent-State as well as private respondents have been filed.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that there is no illegality in the selection criteria and allocation of marks and no Kaur Gurpreet 2014.03.18 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.16724 of 2011 3 allegations of mala fide are there against any member of the Selection Committee. The marks were given to the selected candidates on the basis of their performance in the viva and after considering academic merit of each candidate.
Learned counsel for the private respondents also submits that neither there are allegations of bias against members of the Selection Committee nor there is any illegality with the selection criteria laid down by the Selection Committee. Moreover, the petitioners have willingly participated in the selection process and hence, now have no right to challenge the same.
Learned counsel for the private respondents has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Vijay Sayal and another vs State of Punjab and others 2003(3) SCT 903 as well as the judgment of this Court in case of State of Punjab vs Vikas Kumar 2002 (4) SCT 465, in support of their contentions.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents available on the file including original record of the selection, which has been produced before the Court.
Admittedly, 29 posts of Sanitary Inspectors were advertised by the Commission for various municipal committees and the essential qualification was Matric with Diploma in Sanitary Inspector and Hindi or Sanskrit up to Matric standard. The petitioners as well as other candidates applied for the same. A corrigendum was issued, wherein, it was provided that keeping in view the large number of applications, the persons to be called for interview were short listed and the candidates, who were scoring not less than 70% marks in Diploma for Sanitary Inspectors were called for interview. The marks obtained by the petitioners in qualifying Kaur Gurpreet 2014.03.18 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.16724 of 2011 4 examination are reproduced as under :-
Name of Petitioner no.1 Petitioner no.2 Petitioner no.3 Examination Matric 295/600 = 49.16% 251/600 = 42% 271/600 = 45.1% 10+2 306/500 = 61.2% 303/500 = 60% 336/600 = 56% Diploma in 164/200 = 82% 153/200 = 76.5% 158/200 = 79% Sanitary Inspector B.C.A. 1917/3000 = 64% ---- ----
B.A. 286/600 = 48% ---- ----
M.A. 500/1000 = 50% ---- ----
Petitioner no.1 has also passed B.A as well as M.A in addition to minimum qualification. She has done Bachelor Degree in Computer Application. Similarly, petitioner No.3 is also a Graduate. The result of the selected candidates was declared on 08.09.2010. However, total 33 candidates were declared selected and the petitioners were kept in waiting list. As per criteria, 50 marks were allotted for educational qualification and 25 marks were given for interview/viva-voce.
During pendency of the petition, an affidavit was filed by the Secretary of the Commission and detailed marks of academic qualification along with marks allotted during viva-voce of selected candidates were mentioned therein, which are as under :
Res. Roll No. Category C-Name Academic Viva-Voce G-
Marks/50 Marks/25 Total/75
No. F's Name
1. 00315 GENERAL JAIBIR SINGH 38.33 19 57.33
SHISH PAL
2. 00038 GENERAL DURGA DEVI 39.63 17 56.63
KANWAR PAL
3. 00047 GENERAL DEEPAK JHAMB 38.08 18 56.08
KRISHAN LAL
4. 00005 GENERAL BARHAMJIT 37.05 19 56.05
SINGH
SANT LAL
5. 00213 GENERAL VINOD BEHNIWAL 37.74 18 55.74
LABH SINGH
BEHNIWAL
Kaur Gurpreet
2014.03.18 09:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP No.16724 of 2011 5
6. 00193 GENERAL NARENDER 35.55 20 55.55
KUMAR
JEET RAM
7. 00060 GENERAL VIKAS 36.11 19 55.11
OM PARKASH
8. 00172 GENERAL SURENDER SINGH 35.80 19 54.80
DHRAM SINGH
9. 00279 GENERAL MEENAXI DEVI 34.65 20 54.65
KEHAR SINGH
10. 00278 GENERAL RISHI MALIK 34.57 20 54.57
MS MALIK
11. 00221 GENERAL SATENDER 35.48 19 54.48
JEET SINGH
12. 00206 GENERAL SUNIL DUTT 34.46 20 54.46
MANGAL RAM
13. 00173 GENERAL HARSH CHAWLA 35.40 19 54.40
JAIDEV CHAWLA
14. 00023 GENERAL RAJESH KUMAR 34.38 20 54.38
ATTER SINGH
15. 00179 GENERAL ROHIT KAPOOR 35.35 19 54.35
RAM GOPAL
16. 00024 GENERAL SAHEB SINGH 35.35 19 54.35
AMAR SINGH
17. 00318 GENERAL MANU 34.07 20 54.07
TEK RAM
18. 00054 GENERAL SURINDER KUMAR 34.89 19 53.89
HANS RAJ BHATIA
19. 00041 GENERAL AVINASH SINGLA 34.86 19 53.86
KANWAR SEN
20. 00090 GENERAL ANAND PARKASH 33.78 20 53.78
UMED SINGH
21. 00330 GENERAL RAMESH 31.71 22 53.71
JAI NARAIN
22. 00205 GENERAL PARDEEP SHARMA 33.60 20 53.60
MANGAL RAM
23. 00061 GENERAL SUNIL 35.55 18 53.55
AZAD SINGH
24. 00225 GENERAL HARJIT SINGH 32.34 21 53.34
Kaur Gurpreet
MANJIT SINGH
2014.03.18 09:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CWP No.16724 of 2011 6
25. 00164 GENERAL MADAN LAL 33.04 20 53.04
RATTAN LAL
26. 00120 GENERAL SUMIT HOODA 19 52.78
DHARAM VIR 33.78
HOODA
27. 00019 GENERAL SANJAY KUMAR 32.65 20 52.65
RAMESH KUMAR
28. 00072 GENERAL SUNDER SINGH 32.62 20 52.62
AZAD SINGH
29. 00057 GENERAL JITENDER SINGH 20 52.39
32.39
SATYAWAN
On perusal of marks of the selected candidates, it is clear that all the candidates have been awarded marks between 17 to 20 and majority of them have been awarded 19 or 20 marks out of the total 25 marks. The marks of academic qualification are in the range of 32 to 35.
The details of the marks in academic qualification and viva-voca of the petitioners are reproduced as under :-
Pet. Roll Category C-Name Academic Viva- G- Remarks No. marks/50 Voce Total/75 no. F's Name Marks/2 5 1 00331 General Sunita Devi 37.88 13 50.88 Waiting Lakhi Ram 2 0039 General Rammehar 35.87 15 50.87 Waiting Randhir Singh 3 0018 General Puneet Kumar 35.72 15 50.72 Waiting Ashok Kumar Petitioner no.1 is having 37.88 marks out of 50 marks for academic qualification and 13 marks have been awarded for viva-voce.
Petitioner no.2 has got 35.87 marks in academic qualification and 15 marks in viva-voca. Similarly, petitioner No.3 has got 35.72 marks in academic qualification and 15 marks in viva-voce.
It is clear that the petitioners had been awarded 13 to 15 marks which are the lowest. However, had the petitioners been given 17 marks in the viva-voce, they would have been selected. No doubt, mere Kaur Gurpreet 2014.03.18 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.16724 of 2011 7 wide range of disparity in marks of interview alone cannot be a ground to interfere with the selection unless the allegations of bias are there and the same is to be with some concrete evidence. It is also not disputed that the written examination assesses the candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability, whereas, the viva-voce assesses the candidate's overall intellectual and personal qualities. It is also not dipsuted that the written test alone cannot evaluate the candidate's initiative, alterness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation and these qualities can be evaluated by viva voce test only.
It has been held in various judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court as well as the judgments of this Court that there can be no hard and fast rule while awarding marks during an interview. It is also not disputed that the selection process is generally being challenged during these days and it is not possible for the Court to hold that every selection or interview, irrespective of the constitution of selection committee is deemed to be tainted. It is to be seen whether the selection is unfair or with some mala fide. It is very easy to make an allegation and very difficult to prove the same.
On perusal of record of the Selection, it is clear that the marks of viva-voce have been awarded to the selected candidates in such a manner so that they are bound to come under the merit which is necessary for selection, whereas, the petitioners have been awarded less marks so that they may not reach to the stage of that merit in any manner. Had the same marks been awarded to the petitioners, they would not have come in the merit of selected list. Although, it is not for the courts to substitute the wisdom of the Selection Committee arrived at upon the performance of the candididates while awarding marks to the extent that a particular candidate reaches to the stage of being selected but on perusal of comparative merit Kaur Gurpreet 2014.03.18 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.16724 of 2011 8 of the petitioners viz-a-viz selected candidates, an adverse inference is drawn against the Commission. There is no doubt with the proposition that the object of selection of the candidates to the public service is to secure the best suitable persons. The selection should be based on merit which is always the object to be achieved by the Selection Committee.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Leela Dhar vs State of Rajasthan reported as AIR 1981 SC 1777, has held as under :-
" Selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service. So, open competitive examination has come to be almost universal as the gateway to public services, with unfairness." United Nations Handbook on Civil Service Laws and Practice Competitive examinations were the answer to the twin problems represented by democracy and the requirements of good administration. They were the means by which equality of opportunity was to be united with efficiency. By this means favouritism was to be excluded and the goal of securing the best man for every job was to be achieved. "Public Personnel Administration by O. Glenn Stahl. "Open Competitive Examinations are a peculiarly democratic institution. Any qualified person may come forward. His relative competence for appointment is determined by a neutral disinterested body on the basis of objective evidence supplied by the candidate himself. No one has "pull" every stands on his own feet. The system is not only highly democratic, it is fair and equitable to every competitor. The same rules govern, the same procedures apply, the same yardstick, is used to test competence."
Introduction in the study of Public Administration by Leonard White."
The Supreme Court also referred to the report of Kaur Gurpreet Kothari Committee on recruitment policy. The quoted 2014.03.18 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.16724 of 2011 9 portion is extracted below :-
" A system of recruitment almost totally dependent on assessment of a person's academic knowledge and skills, as distinct from ability to deal with pressing problems of economic and social development with people, and with novel situations cannot serve the needs of today, much less of tomorrow... We venture to suggest that our recruitment procedures should be such that we can select candidates who cannot only assimilate knowledge and sift material to understand the ramifications of a situation or a problem but have the potential to develop an original or innovative approach to the solution of problems."
18. The Khothari Report has further commented for judging the suitability of a person for public service, expressing that :-
" The destiny of India is now being shaped in her class rooms. This, we believe is no more rhetoric. In a world based on science and technology, it is education that determines the level of prosperity, welfare and security of the people."
After taking notice of the aforesaid references, the Supreme Court observed that :-
" The written examination assesses man's intellect and the interview test the man himself and "the twain shall meet" for a proper selection."
Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed in judgment Y. Srinivasa Rao v. J. Veeraiah and others, AIR 1993 SC 929 as under :-
"6. The decision to prefer an uneducated person over an educated person amounts to allowing premium on ignorance, incompetence and consequently inefficiency. The only fault of the appellant is to have pursued his studies beyond 10th Kaur Gurpreet 2014.03.18 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.16724 of 2011 10 class of his school. If he had discontinued his career as a student even earlier, say after passing 7th or 8th class, he would have been running the shop today. This clearly amounts to gross arbitrariness and, therefore, illegal discrimination. Pursuing this line the State will have to be going in search of a more inefficient person and we do not know where this process would end. If we assume that since a better qualified person has got a better chance to succeed in life, an intelligent applicant who can run the shop efficiently should be rejected and a dim witted fellow should be selected. This is an absurd situation."
On perusal of original record of the selection, it is clear that more marks have been awarded to the selected candidates. All of them have been awarded marks between the range of 17 to 20, whereas, the petitioners have been awarded lowest marks so that they may not reach the stage of selection. Such a criteria of awarding marks raises suspicion and a question mark towards the attitude of the Members of the Selection Committee. More marks have been given to the selected candidates and lowest marks have been given to the petitioners and other candidates with a purpose so that they may not reach to the stage of selection. The criteria of selection has been prepared with a pre-determined purpose to select certain candidates by awarding marks in a particular range of selection and to give marks to other candidates so that they may not reach to that range of selection. By considering the wisdom of Selection Committee that in case, the selected candidates did well in interview and marks were awarded as per their performance, the marks of interview are not being disturbed as the Court cannot close its eyes by seeing the record of selection and attitude of the Selection Committee.
In view of the facts as mentioned above, the present petition is allowed and the selection is quashed with the following directions to the Kaur Gurpreet 2014.03.18 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.16724 of 2011 11 respondent-Commission :-
(a) 25 marks for viva voce are maintained and the same should not be disturbed.
(b) 75 marks be considered for eligibility qualification by applying uniformally to all short listed candidates and to assess their merit by considering the requisite qualification as well as higher qualification and experience.
(c) The Commission shall re-frame the criteria within 75 marks, reserved for eligibility qualification, giving adequate weightage to the higher qualification as well.
(d) All the candidates shall be re-assessed by the Commission in accordance with re-framed criteria, for determining their merit and suitability within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 11.03.2014 JUDGE gurpreet Kaur Gurpreet 2014.03.18 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh