CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4150 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 28, 2011 Mrs.Suman .....Petitioner VERSUS Adarsh Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Bhiwani and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Saurav Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Siddharath Batra, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Balram Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Adarsh Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Bhiwani has selected and appointed Sushma (respondent No.4) daughter of Sh.Suraj Bhan, for the post of Lady Lecturer (Sanskrit), which was advertised on CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4150 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: 10.9.2008. Petitioner, Mrs.Suman, has challenged the said selection on the ground that respondent No.4 has been wrongly credited with more marks than she was entitled to as per the criteria and hence, the selection was made in an arbitrary manner to oust the petitioner by giving her less marks by violating the criteria. Seven posts of Lady Lecturer, including one post of Lecturer in Sanskrit, were issued by respondent-College on 10.9.2008. Five applications were received for post of Lecturer (Sanskrit). On 8.10.2008, respondent No.2 issued letters, calling the petitioner for interview, which was held on 22.10.2008. Selection Committee recommended three candidates. Respondent No.4, Sushma, was appointed on 20.11.2008. The petitioner obtained relevant information under the Right to Information Act and on learning that selection has been done in an arbitrary and illegal manner, has filed this writ petition to challenge the said selection. Separate replies have been filed on behalf of the State and respondent-Institution. The respondent would contest the right of the petitioner to challenge the selection, which was statedly done as per the prescribed procedure. As per the respondent-College, respondent No.4 was found fully eligible and most competent and was rightly selected. The State Government in its reply has made reference to the rule position and method of recruitment. As per the same, recommendation of the Selection Committee in respect of a private college is required to be approved by the Vice Chancellor and the Director. It is disclosed that the approval was granted for appointment of respondent No.4, as the decision of the Selection CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4150 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: Committee was unanimous. The petitioner has made reference to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee in order of merit. Respondent-Sushma was placed at Sr.No.3 whereas the petitioner was at Sr.No.4 in order of merit as per the academic qualification and performance. Accordingly, respondent No.4 was appointed. The detail marks awarded to various candidates on the basis of academic qualification in interview has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. Respondent No.4 was awarded 56 marks in total whereas the petitioner could obtain 54 marks. The criteria for assessment, as issued by the respondent- Government has also been placed on record as Annexure P-5. A perusal of the same would show that 20 marks are assigned for academic records at Master's level degree and 10 marks for good academic record. There is a provision made for waitage for additional/higher qualification. 10 marks each are assigned for teaching experience, co-curricular activities and sports. 25 marks were assigned for interview. A mention is made in detail as to how the marks are to be awarded for each of the categories while carrying out assessment. For assessing in Master level degree, 5 marks are to be awarded for a minimum qualification obtained with 55% marks. 1 mark for each additional percentage point is to be assigned for marks from 56-70%. Maximum 20 marks are to be awarded to a candidate having more than 70% and above marks. It is also provided that 0.5% marks shall be rounded off to next percentage point and below 0.5% marks shall CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4150 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: be rounded off to the lower percentage point. For awarding marks on the basis of good academic record, a candidate having Ist Division in all the three lower examinations i.e. B.A., Prep or +2 and Matric prior to M.A./M.Sc/M.Com. is to be awarded 10 marks. Ist Division in two lower examinations will get 7 marks whereas 5 marks are to be awarded for a 1st Division in one lower examination. Similarly, the marks are to be awarded in various other categories. The petitioner was awarded 35 marks out of 75 as per the academic record and was awarded 19 marks out of 25 in interview. Respondent No.4, however, scored 32 out of 75 in the academic records and 24 out of 25 in the interview. As per the counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.4 has been awarded 7 marks in the category of good academic record whereas she was entitled to 5 marks only as she had Ist Division in B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. examination. To justify 7 marks, it is stated that respondent No.4 had obtained 59.6% marks in +2 examination, which were rounded off to 60% and hence, she was awarded 7 marks. The petitioner accordingly would plead that respondent No.4 was wrongly awarded 2 extra marks whereas the petitioner was denied 1 mark in the academic record for Master's level degree. The petitioner had scored 66.5% marks in M.A./M.Sc. and was awarded 16 marks whereas her marks were required to be rounded off to 67% marks, entitling her to get 17 marks. On this basis, the petitioner claims to be more meritorious than respondent No.4 and so would stake the claim for selection. The issue primarily is to see whether the respondents CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4150 OF 2009 :{ 5 }: were justified in rounding off the marks obtained by respondent No.4 in +2 examination to award 2 marks to her or not. The criteria as placed on record clearly reveals that rounding off of marks is provided only in respect of Master's level degree. Five marks are to be awarded for obtaining 55% being minimum qualification and then 1 mark each for additional percentage point. It is only in this context stated that marks above 0.5% shall be rounded off to next percentage. Whether the rounding off could be done to assess the person with the Division would, thus, be a question. The good academic record is not dependent upon percentage of marks obtained and assessment is to be made on the basis of Division obtained by a particular candidate. The Ist Division in all the three lower examinations would carry 10 marks and similarly Ist Division in two lower examinations was to carry 7 marks. There is no provision made for rounding off the marks as here the question is of a Division and not of percentage of marks. The rounding off of marks is only in respect of Master's level degree and not in respect of other classes where marks are to be awarded on the basis of a division obtained by a candidate. Respondent No.4 had obtained 59.6% marks in +2 examination, which was a second division. These marks could not have been rounded off to assess her as a Ist Divisioner. Marks were not to be awarded on the basis of percentage obtained but it was the division obtained which was material for assessing the good academic record. That is not the case in respect of Master's level degree. Here the percentage of marks obtained is material for assessing and awarding marks and not the division. It is in this CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4150 OF 2009 :{ 6 }: context that provision has specifically been made only against this column for rounding off the marks to the next percentage point in matriculate level. That being so, the petitioner would be entitled to marks on the basis of 67% marks in the Master's degree level, which was not done. It would sound strange that the official respondents have rounded off the marks of respondent No.4 in +2 class where it is not permissible and had awarded her 2 extra marks whereas failed to show the same concession to the petitioner, where rounding off was permissible. To challenge the arbitrary action of the respondents, the petitioner has placed on record order, Annexure P-6, where one Dr.Manjeet has been awarded 7 marks on the basis of good academic record, though he had 1st Division in Matric as well as in B.A. and his marks of 63.5% in the Matric were not rounded off to the next percentage. The counsel would also point out that assessment of 18 marks made in respect of Dr.Manjeet by rounding off his percentage of 67.5% marks in Master's level degree to 68%. In view of the above, it is clear that the respondents have not carried out the assessment in a legal and proper manner in terms of the criteria laid down. Respondent No.4 apparently has been given 2 extra marks wrongly in good academic record, to which she was not entitled to and the petitioner like Dr.Manjeet was entitled to 1 extra mark for Master's level degree. If that is done, the petitioner would come down to 54 marks whereas marks of the petitioner would increase to 55. The petitioner, thus, would apparently more meritorious. The selection, therefore, has not been fairly done. Merely because there CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4150 OF 2009 :{ 7 }: was no dissent and the selection was unanimous, would not mean that the same is fair, when it is found to be in violation of the criteria formulated by the respondents themselves. The decision making process is found to be in violation of fair criteria rendering the decision to be bad. The writ petition, therefore, is allowed. Direction is hereby issued to the respondents to carry out the fresh assessment of the petitioner and respondent No.4 on the basis of criteria laid down and redo the entire exercise by re-assessing the merit strictly in terms of the criteria as formulated. Let the needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Necessary consequences would accordingly follow. March 28, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE