Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Accordingly arguments number 1 and 2 raised by the petitioner are rejected due to aforestated reasons.

7. The third argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the method of selection adopted by the respondents, by not giving preference to the petitioner who has 2 years of experience in working of labour laws is against the settled principles of law as laid down in the cited case law, therefore, liable to be set aside, because the present selection has been made solely on the basis of percentage of marks secured by the candidates, is also devoid of any merit. It is always the prerogative of the recruiting agency to formulate a criteria and apply the same uniformly upon all the candidates. Apparently, the criteria has been uniformly applied. The judgement of Om Parkash (supra) which has been relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner would also show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that in the absence of any statutory criteria prescribed for the selection to a particular post, the recruiting agency is well within its discretion to evolve its own method of recruitment for the purpose of evaluating and selecting the candidates. In fact, in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the judgement of Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby, the High court had held that a person with a preferential qualification was entitled to be selected and appointed to a post, as he had a preferential qualification. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that by no stretch of imagination, a clause of preferential 7 of 10 CWP No.19192 of 2015 #8# qualification, can be construed to mean that a higher qualified person automatically is entitled to be selected and appointed for the post dehors the inter se merit/marks secured in the selection process. Thus, this judgement relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner does not support his case and in fact goes against him. There is no discussion in the said judgement as to what is to be done when the merit list is prepared, not on the basis of a competitive examination but on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in their essential qualification.

8. As far as the 2nd judgement of Pearl Sidhu's case (supra) is concerned, the said judgement does not help the petitioner at all and infact, it is seen that a similar argument to the one raised by petitioner was raised by a candidate before the bench and while rejecting the said argument the court had held as under:

" Amolak Singh (petitioner in CWP No. 10780 of 2009) as also Ms. Pearl Sidhu (petitioner in CWP No. 11047 of 2010) applied under the Ex-servicemen Punjab category. After the selection, recommendations were made by the Commission, according to which, Ms. Pearl Sidhu was placed at Serial No. 3 in the combined merit list and Amolak Singh at Serial No. 5. This merit list was forwarded by the Commission to the Government in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, vide letter dated 15.7.2009. In the category wise merit list, Ms. Pearl Sidhu was placed at Serial No. 1 and Amolak Singh at Serial No. 2. Amolak Singh is asserting his appointment prior to Ms. Pear Sidhu on the ground that he was possessing qualification as provided in Clause (a), which is a preferential qualification, whereas Ms. Pearl Sidhu possesses qualification as provided in Clause (c).