CWP No.17490 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17490 of 1998 DATE OF DECISION: April 1, 2010 NIRMAL SINGH & OTHERS ...PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. PRESENT: MR. R.K. CHOPRA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. AMIT CHOPRA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS. MR. ARVIND MITTAL, ADDL.A.G., PUNJAB. MR. D.S. PATWALIA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. This judgement shall dispose of CWP No.17490 of 1998, and CWP Nos.15626, 17996, 19763, 19149 of 1998, CWP Nos.593, 4144, 5465 of 1999, CWP No.13794 of 2000 and CWP No.14486 of 2001, however, the facts have been extracted from CWP No.17490 of 1998. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the recommendations made by SSS Board, Punjab for appointment to the post of Gram Sewaks vide selection list published on 19.8.1998 (Annexure P-2) and the consequential appointments of respondents No.8 to 415 (selected candidates) who have been issued appointment letters dated 30.9.1998, as the aforesaid selection is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. CWP No.17490 of 1998 -2- Briefly the facts of the case are that vide advertisement dated 13.12.1994 (Annexure P-1), applications were invited for the post of Gram Sewaks. As per advertisement, 415 posts were advertised. The advertisement further reveals that reservation of posts was as per the Punjab Government Instructions issued from time to time. It was also mentioned that age of the candidates was to be between 18 to 35 years as on 1.1.1995, relaxable for some classes as mentioned therein. The advertisement also envisaged that for appointing Gram Sewaks, the educational qualification was matric, plus, one year training at the expense of recruit candidate alongwith knowledge of Punjab language upto Matric standard or its equivalent. In pursuance of the aforementioned advertisement (Annexure P-1), 68000 applicants applied for 415 posts of Gram Sewaks. Keeping in view the large number of applicants, the respondents decided to shortlist the candidates vide public notice dated 20.4.1996 and they also decided to hold a written 'Screening Test' for shortlisting of candidates. On 18.8.1996, a screening test was held. On 27.7.1997, the result was declared. 2411 candidates were declared successful in the screening test vide result Annexure P-3. The interviews were held of the candidates who were successful in the screening test in November, December, 1997 and the final result was declared on 19.9.1998, vide which 415 candidates were selected for the post of Gram Sewaks. The petitioners challenged the select list by filing CWP No.14815 of 1998 and the writ petition was disposed of being premature with liberty to file a fresh petition as and when the selected candidates were given appointments. They were also given the liberty to represent to the CWP No.17490 of 1998 -3- appointing authority and to point out the irregularities in the selection. The order passed by the Division Bench is as follows:- “ORDER Sh.Y.S. Bajwa, counsel for the petitioner. G.S. SINGHVI, J; This petition has been filed for quashing the recommendations made by the Subordinate Service Selection Board, Punjab for recruitment of Gramsewaks. After perusing the writ petition and hearing the learned counsel who was fair enough to admit that orders appointing the selected candidates are to be issued, we are convinced that the writ petition is premature and is liable to be dismissed as such in view of the judgements of the Supreme Court in G.Sarana vs. University of Lucknow, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2429 and Mrs. Kaunda S.Kadam and others vs. Dr. K.K.Soman and others, AIR 1980 Supreme Court, 881. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed as premature with liberty to the petitioners to file fresh petition as and when the selected candidates are given appointments. In the meantime, the petitioners may again represent the appointing authority to draw its attention towards the alleged irregularities committed by the Subordinate Service Selection Board, Punjab while making recommendations. Sep. 17, 1998 Sd/- G.S.Singhvi, Judge Sd/- Iqbal Singh, Judge” CWP No.17490 of 1998 -4- All the selected candidates were issued appointment letters on 30.9.1998. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the appointment and the issuance of the appointment letters. Counsel for the petitioners have raised numerous arguments. It has been contended that the examination test which was held was not informed to the candidates to be of a screening type and that no prior decision had been taken before declaring the test as 'screening test'. It has further been argued that in case the screening test was held, then the marks obtained in the screening test should also have been added to the total marks, so that the merit list could be prepared accordingly. It has next been contended that the screening test was not advertised. Learned counsel have also contended that reserved category candidates who had secured more marks than the General category candidates should have been selected against the General vacancies and further that reservation policy was not followed and hence, the advertisement is illegal. It has lastly been contended that the selection was based only on viva-voce and therefore, keeping of 100% marks for interview is illegal. The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners have been strongly controverted by the counsel appearing for the official respondents as well as the private respondents. It is the stand of the respondents that as 68000 applications were received against 415 posts of Gram Sewaks, therefore, it was desired that a process of shortlisting be conducted to cut down the number of candidates to appear in the interview. Accordingly, a screening test was sought to be taken. All the candidates were informed of the screening test by way of public notice (Annexure R-1) CWP No.17490 of 1998 -5- and were also informed of the date and place where the test would be conducted. The selection was based on definite criteria as mentioned in Annexure R-2. It has also been contended on behalf of the respondents that marks were given in interview for educational qualifications and physical standard for sports and for extra-curricular activities and the selection was not based only on the basis of interview. Moreover, all the candidates were made aware of the selection criteria by the Selection Committee. The respondents have also averred that any candidate belonging to Reserved category who had secured more marks than the General category has not been selected against General category, but no specific instance has been given in the writ petition. It has also been averred that Reservation Policy has been strictly adhered to. 52 posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes and others and 52 posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes Mazhabis. All the appointments have been made as per the Reservation Policy. The private respondents in their reply have submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had earlier filed CWP No.14815 of 1998 wherein the entire selection process including the screening test was challenged and this Court had declined to interfere in the same. It has further been contended that it is well settled proposition of law that the candidates who have competed in the selection process and have failed then, they are estopped from challenging the same. Reliance has been placed on Vijay Syal and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported as JT 2003 (5) SC 241, Rajesh Sharma and another vs. Haryana Public Service Commission, reported as 1999(1) RSJ 728, Madan Lal and others vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, reported as 1995(2) SCT 880 and University of Cochin, Rep., by its Registrar vs. N.S. Kanjoonjamma, CWP No.17490 of 1998 -6- reported as 1997(3) SCT 147. Counsel for the private respondents have further argued that the petitioners are estopped from challenging the selection test as they had participated in the screening test and were successful in the same. They had not raised any grievance at any point of time. The petitioners also appeared in the interview in pursuance to the said screening test and now that they have failed to be selected, hence, they cannot challenge holding of the screening test and the interview. It has further been averred that the writ petitioners have wrongly stated that no specific criteria was adopted. The criteria adopted was duly disclosed vide Annexure R-2 and was pasted on the notice board before the interviews had commenced. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. A perusal of the facts of the present case shows that 415 posts of Gram Sewaks were advertised, however, applications received for the aforementioned posts were very much, i.e. 68000 in number. It would have been very difficult for the Selection Committee to interview all the 68000 applicants and hence, the respondents decided to hold the screening test in order to shortlist the candidates. A screening test was held and 2411 candidates were shortlisted, out of whom 415 applicants were to be given appointment. It would have been wholly impracticable for the Board to interview each of the 68000 applicants. Therefore, action of the respondents in holding screening test cannot be declared illegal. In Rajesh Sharma's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- “6. As far as the jurisdiction of the Commission to hold screening test concerned, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel because the recruiting CWP No.17490 of 1998 -7- agency, like the Commission, has the power to devise this case, the number of applications received for recruitment against 74 posts was over 1500 and it would have been wholly impracticable for the Commission to interview each and every candidate. It may have consumed many weeks or even months before the Commission could determine the comparative merit of the candidates by holding interviews. Therefore, its action of holding screening test cannot be declared illegal. This is also the view taken by the Apex Court and this Court in the following decisions:- (1) Jayant Kumar Chavhan vs. Public Service Commission, M.P. Indore and another, 1979(1) SLR 316; (2) Ashok Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1987 SC 454; (3) V.J. Thomas and others vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1985 SC 1055; (4) S.B. Mathur and other vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and others, AIR 1988 SC 2073; (5) The Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Dilip Kumar and another, JT 1993(2) SC 138. (6) Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another, 1995(1) RSJ 142, AIR 1995 SC 77; (7) Union of India and another vs. T. Sundararaman and others, JT 1997(5) SC 48; (8) Dr.Lovekesh Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab and CWP No.17490 of 1998 -8- others, 1998(1) RSJ 566(P&H). For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.” Apart from the above, the law is now well settled that having once competed and failed, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the selections. In Vijay Syal's case (supra), it has been held by the Apex Court that “the recruitment criteria having been published and appellants having participated in the interview cannot be allowed to turn back and challenge the criteria determined for selection”. The petitioners participated in the screening test and were successful in the same. They did not raise any grievance at that point of time. They even participated in the interview in pursuance to the screening test. Now, that they have failed to be selected, hence, they are estopped from challenging the selection. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No.2 had already placed on record the notice which clearly stated that there would be a screening test and hence the contention of the petitioners that the Board did not disclose as to whether the test was to be a written test or screening test is factually incorrect. The Board had clearly spelt out the criteria which has been annexed as Annexure R-2 with the reply of respondent No.2 and the same was pasted on the notice board before interview commenced. The petitioners as well the private respondents were aware of the criteria. The next argument on behalf of the petitioners that candidates belonging to the Reserved Category who secured more marks than the General Category candidates have not been selected against the General Category is also without any substance. No specific instance has been CWP No.17490 of 1998 -9- quoted by the petitioners as to which candidate belonging to the reserved category had secured more marks than the candidate in the General category and has not been placed in the General Category. In the absence of any specific instance, it cannot be said that a candidate belonging to the Reserved Category who had secured more marks than the General Category candidate has not been selected against the General Category. Lastly, from a perusal of the record, it is clear that none of the petitioners came within the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of Gram Sewaks. No mala fide has been attached to the Selection Committee. In the absence thereof the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Moreover, the selection were made as far back as in the year 1998. More than 12 years have elapsed, since the selection has taken place. The selected candidates are already working and therefore, even on equity, no interference is called for at this stage. Resultantly, there is no merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed. April 1, 2010 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Gulati JUDGE