81 1 1 CWP Noe1015of2011 1 INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION 3 e 2 02011 Vijayinder and others Petitioners VERSUS 1 C The PunjabPublic Service Commission e e 0 0 CORAM I t5 HONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI I Z PRESENT SinghDhindsaAdvocate for thepetitioner r Permod Kohli Je I Punjab Public ServiceCommissionPatiala hereinafterreferredto t3 Z as theCommissionlissued for holding thePunjabStateCivil OO ServicesCombined Examination 2009 As lnany as 143 m7 vacanciesof Punjab Civil ServicesExecutiveBranchlandAllied Services Z were notifiedBy virtue ofan addendum37 postsofExcise and Taxation Om Officerswere also broughtwithin thepurviewof examination the total posts 180 Besides the nutnber of vacancies for Punjab Civil Services Executive Branchland other All ied Services r also the qualiflcations and the details of the examination the of minimuin marks etc The test was to be Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 82 1 4b CWP Noe1015of2011 2 conductedin two successive stages l l Examinationand 621Main Examination Nritten and Vlvae vocelProspectusAirtherprovided the eligibilityof candidatesfor maln examination after holdingthe preliminary examinationunder the captionof Overview of the Examination The relevant extract necessary for the purpose of the presentwrlt petttionlS hereunderl a Overview of the Examinationl 0 1 Candidatesequaito thirteen times of the total U I vacancles determinedby the Government under sul 0 I rule 61 of Rule 13 l shall quali61for the maln examination Z XXX XXX Xxx Q 4 No candidateshall be eligibleto appear in the L0 Main Examinationunlesshe obtains 45 Z percent marksin aggregateof the two papers with m minimum 40 per cent marksin eachsubject 7 Z 59Themarksobtainedin the examinatiOn tl by the candidateswho are declared qualiftedfor admission to the main Examination will not be counted for their flnal order of 4 merit bythe Commission 15 The examination was to consist of two papers Papere l General Studies 150 marks and Paper one subjectto be selected from Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 83 CWP Nol015 of2011 3 thelist of optional 6300markslThus total marksfor Preliminary Examination were fixedat 450 It is statedthat as many as 29000candldates submittedtheir and after scrutinyapproximately 23500 candidates were issuedroIl numbersfor appearancein the Preliminary Examinationheld on 922010 Resultofthe Examination was bythe Commissionon 30122010 As many as 2212 candidatesin theGeneralandReserve havebeen short4istcdfor main written m Petitionerswere declaredunsuccessfulfor appearancein the 0 main examlnation The have downloadedtheir marks from the C0 OfflcialWebsiteof the Commission It is alleged that all the Ca9 have securedmore than 45Io marksin aggregate of the two papersand 40Io minimum marksin each The contentionof the is that Z theyhave acquiredeligibilityby more than 45Io marks 111 and40Io in each subjectin terms ofthe issuedbythe I and thus are entitled to applyand appearfor main written Z Forms for the main writtenexaminationhaveto be filled up by rll 1522011 Since the have not been included in the list of maw successful candidatestheyare not entitledto applyfor main examination Z Thispetition has beenfiled bythe seeking a directionin tl the nature of Mandamusto permitthem to appear in the main written examination for recruitment to PunjabStateCivi l Services Executive r andAllied Servicesand furtherwrit in the nature of Certiorarifor the condition ltl the issuedbythe Commissionwhich inter alia provides that candidatesequalto 13 timesof the total vacancies Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 84 44 CWP No1015 of2011 4 by the Governmentshall quali61for the main examination It is furtherthe case of the that the condition eligibility for malll examination equalto 13 times the number of total vacanciesis irrational unconstitutionaland violative of the FundamentalRights of the In supportof the contentionsthe have referredto the advertisementissuedby the Jammu and 1 r KashmirPublic ServiceCommission Himachal Pradesh Public Service 0 and the Union Public ServiceCommissionfor administrative 0 I services where the1argernumberof candidates have been allowed to 0 for the mainexaminationIn Jammu and Kashmir 113 Of the tOtal appear numberof candidateswho have or 25 times the Z ofvacancies which ever may be higherare declaredto beeligible 2 C for mainexaminationIn HimachalPradesh in relation to the Himachal PradeshAdministrative Service Combined Preliminary t3 Z 2009 the nuinberof candidatesshort listed on the basisof 00 the Examinationto be called for the Main Written Examination 7 was20 times ofthe totalnumberofvacanciesand thesame criteriahasbeen Z tl fixedby the Union Public Service Commissionfor the Central Civil ServicesExamination The other contention of the is that Clauses l 1and 641of Cm theProspectusunder the captionOverviewof thc Examination are self and mutually exclusive Mr Dhindsa Iearnedcounsel for the has arguedthat in terins of Clause every Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 85 1 CWP Noe1015of2011 5 3 who secures minimum450Iomarksin and40Iomarksln eachsubject is eligible to appearin themain examinationwhereas Clause 61 candidatesequalto 13 times of thetotal vacanciesshall qualifyfor the main examinationwhich lS totallyirrelevant and illogicalas the sametends to takeaway the rightconferredupon a candidateunder Clause 41 From the it appears that the Schemeof Examinationfor PunjabState Civil Services m C CombinedExamination1S to ensure that best suitableand meritorious 0 is selectedfor the administrativeserviceof the State which is 0 I otherwisethe backbone of the administration Ill every The C5 of scrutinyis and highly I Examination is in fact a process where a large Z numberof candidatesapplyand it becomes difficult to permit r every to appear in the main examinationThe object I ofthe is also to ensure that the bestIot is selectedfor such Z servicein the State The contentionof the that Clauses 00 and are self and exclusiveis without any 7 substanceClause649 minimum 45Iomarks in aggregate and Z 40Iomarks in eachsubjectwhich is the minimumeligibilitycriteriafor fl main entranceexaminationwhereasin terms of Clause 1 13 times equal to the number ofvacancies is the for shortlisting the candidates 4eeeee forthe main entrance examinationThere does not seem to be any conOict between the two Clauses Clause 641prescribes the minimuin eligibility whereas Clause 6l9 the shortlistingcriteria ie zone of Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 86 4 44 CWP Noe1015of2011 6 considerationMinimum and zone of considerationare two different Everyeligiblecandidatemay not be within zone of considerationThus Clause 49lS in factintendumwith Clause6l and 1S not 111 Shortlisting of the candidatesfor any examination lS and establishedmode Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pradesh Public Service Commissionvse Navnit Kumar Potdar andanother199416 SupremeCourt cases 293 hasobservedas underl 1 L The which 1S to be answeredis as to 0 whether111theprocessof the Commission 0 I has alteredor substitutedthe criteria or theeligibility C5 of a candidateto be consideredfor being I thepost of Oftlcer Labour Court lt Z maybe mentionedat the outset that whenever C are invitedfor recruitmentto the diHerent I postscertain basic and criteria Z are tlxed andthe must possess those basic QO and criteria beforetheir applications can 2 beentertalnedfor consideration The Selection Z Board or theCommissionhas to decide as to what IS to be followed for selectingthe best candidates from amongsthe 1e The aforesaid of aw has been reiteratedby Honble Court in the case of BRamakichenin alias BalagandhiVS Unionof India and others 20081SupremeCourt Cases 262 wherein Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 87 4 J CWP Noe1015of2011 7 it hasbeenobservedas underl 15 It is well settledthat the methodof can be validly adopted bytheSelectionBodyvideMadhya PradeshPublic ServiceCommissionvs NavnitKumarPotdarandanother8 1994 69SCC 2936videparas6 8 9 and 13 Govcrnmentof Andhra Pradeshvs P DilipKumarand anotherH 199321SCC 310 etc 1Even if thereis no ruleproviding for nor anymentionof it in the advertisementcallingfor 0 0 for thepost theSelectionBodycan resort to a shortisng are a largenumber 0 I of eligible candidateswho applyand it is not possible Z for the authorityto intervicw all of them For if for one or two poststhere are more than r 1000 receivedfrom eliglblecandidateslt I C maynot be possible to interview all of them In this Z situationthe of shorelisting can beresorted m to by the SelectionBody even thoughthere is no emv Z mention of shortistingIll the rules or in the C advertisement 99 Fromthe aforesaidobservationsof Honble Supreme Court inevitable 1 conclusionthat can be drawn n that the selectionauthority is entitledto Cee adoptshort4isting criteria to search and selectthe best amongst the However the criteria shouldbe reasonable fair and rationaleAs noticedabove the criteria adoptedbythe 1S Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 88 CWP Noe1015of2011 8 justandreasonable Another aspectin thepresent case lS that the have in the selectionprocesswithout any reservation even forselectionwas known to them havingbeennotiOed in whenthe criteria the itself Clauses11 and 641of the clearly the criteriafor selection The have thus and have themselves diseentitledto challengethe criteria m r Honble Surpeme Court in thecase of Chandra Parkash Tiwari and 0 others Ve Shukla and others 200216 SCC 127 it has been 0 I heldas underl C5 32In this Court recordedthat the I issueof byconductcan onlybe saidto be Z availableIn theevent of therebeinga precise and r andit is on that score I a furtherquestion artses as to whether therewas 0 Z any assurance the assured Oll to alter his positionor status the situation 7 however does not warrant such a Z and we are thus not in a position to lend to the contentionof DrDhawan the doctrine of Estoppel by conduct It 4 1S to benoticed at this juncturethat while the doctrineof by conductmay not have any but that does not bar a contention as Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 89 CWP No1015 of2011 9 therightto an UPOn due at the It is a which stands barred and it is in this perspectlve ln OmParkashShukla60mParkash Shukla V AkhileshKumar Shukla and Ors9 a Bench of this Court Iaid down in no uncertain terms that when a candidateappearsat 1 the examinationwithoutprotestand 0 foundto be not succes11 in the examination 0 of a petition the 0 saidexaminationwould not arise 59 I The observationshave been reiterated bYthe HOnble Z 2 Supreme in thecase of Union of India and others ve SeVinod Kumar 0 and OrseAIR 2008 Supreme Court 5 In Vlew oftheaboveIegalposition I the to the selectionis not sustainable m1 Z In view of the above I Snd no merit in this petitionwhich is D dismissed 7 Z 9 PERMOD KOHLII 1 Qm JUDGE 9 e 2e2011 MFK Note2Whetherto be reported2 YES 141Sb lr G l Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document