CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4097 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 23, 2011 Satish Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana 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. S. N. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner had appeared in the B1 test conducted by Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Hisar with his batch-mates in the year 2010. On the basis of the merit prepared, the list of candidates who appeared in B1 test, was prepared by the Department Promotion Committee and was forwarded to I.G.P., Haryana, Armed Police, Madhuban, for approval. The list included the name of the petitioner, which was duly recommended by the Chairman, Department Promotion Committee. However, the petitioner did not find his name in the final select list declared for admission to the promotion list B1 issued on 20.4.2010. The petitioner applied for obtaining information CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4097 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: under R.T.I. Act. On receipt of details of marks as well as the merit position of the selected candidates in B1 list, the petitioner found that he was shown to have secured 65.5 marks and was at Sr.No.43 of the select list of the general category candidates. Respondent No.5 had secured 65 marks and was at Sr.No.44 whereas respondent No.6, Pardeep Kumar with 63.75 marks was shown at Sr.No.45. Similarly, Kiran Kumar (64 marks) and Jagdish Chander (51.5 marks) were shown at Sr.Nos.46 and 47 of the select list. The petitioner represented on 6.1.2011. Respondent No.3, however, rejected his representation by pointing out that the petitioner had been assigned 5 marks of education being M.A. whereas he had only shown M.A. previous qualification in his character roll. Thus, the marks obtained by the petitioner were 62.5 instead of 65 marks whereas last cut off marks in general category was 64. The petitioner has accordingly challenged this order on the ground that this is arbitrary and malafide and has accordingly prayed for quashing the same, whereby the Inspector General has reduced the marks of the petitioner from 65 to 62.5 without any justification. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, it is stated that 55 seats were allocated to all HAP Battalion for selection of Constables for promotion to list B1 for the year 2010 under 55% quota. Department Promotion Committee, under the chairmanship of Commandant, 3rd Battalion, HAP, Hisar, was constituted and on line B1 test was conducted. The petitioner appeared in the general category under 55% quota. The name of the petitioner was recommended by the Chairman for approval to the Inspector General of Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban, as per Rule CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4097 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: 13.7 (Amended) of the Punjab Police Rules. The petitioner was granted marks for higher education (M.A., History) by the Chairman. It was found that the petitioner did not inform the department about passing M.A. Final examination at the time of B1 test 2010. The petitioner, however, informed the department on 14.4.2010, when all the process of B1 test had been completed. The application of the petitioner regarding this information is annexed with the reply as Annexure R-1. The on line test was conducted on 10th and 11th April, 2010. As per Rule 13.7, educational qualifications are to be brought for evaluation of merit for list B1 as on 1st January of the year in which the selection is made. As per the record, the petitioner had only passed M.A. previous examination as on 1.1.2010 and accordingly, the Inspector General, HAP, Madhuban, disallowed 5 marks to the petitioner awarded to him by the Department Promotion Committee on account of his higher qualification. It is stated that recommendations of the Department Promotion Committee can not be considered final, until the same are approved by the Inspector General, who is the controlling Officer. It is also pointed out that the whole service record of the petitioner was scrutinized and thereafter it was found that he had only obtained 62.05 marks whereas cut off marks for general category candidate was 64 marks. Hence, the name of the petitioner was rightly rejected by Inspector General, HAP, Madhuban. When the case came up for hearing before this Court on 28.7.2011, the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was rightly assessed by the Department Promotion Committee and given 65.5 marks. As per the counsel, the marks CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4097 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: awarded to the petitioner by Department Promotion Committee were wrongly and arbitrarily brought down to 62.05 by Inspector General. The justification given in the reply was noted. The stand was that the petitioner had shown his post-graduation degree after the assessment. However, it was noticed that the petitioner had in fact passed his post graduation degree in the year 2009 i.e. much before the date he was required to be considered for B1 list. The petitioner had produced the degree at the time of interview and that is how he was assessed by the Department Promotion Committee and awarded marks for post-graduation degree. In this factual background, the action of the Inspector General in reducing the marks of the petitioner was observed to be not well founded. The State counsel was given time to have instructions and the case was accordingly adjourned. The State counsel appearing in this case would continue to stick to the stand taken in the reply and would justify the action of Inspector General, which, according to him, was in terms of rule position. The short question, which would, thus, arise for consideration is whether the action of the Inspector General in reducing the marks of the petitioner as awarded by Department Promotion Committee for the reasons as stated in the reply is justified or not? Concededly, the petitioner has passed the post- graduation course much before the date of his selection in the year 2009. The name of the petitioner was considered for B1 list in April 2010. The on line consideration was conducted on 10th and 11th April, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4097 OF 2011 :{ 5 }: 2010 and the petitioner had informed the department on 14.4.2010. Still, in fairness he can not be denied the benefit of higher qualification of M.A., which the petitioner had obtained much prior to the relevant date. Merely because the petitioner had informed the Department about the higher qualification at the time of interview can not be a reason enough to say that he is not having this qualification, for which the petitioner was required to be awarded marks. The fact that the petitioner had informed the Department about his Post- graduation degree is well evident from the conduct of Department Promotion Committee, where the petitioner was awarded marks on the basis of higher qualification and his name recommended for B1 list. The action of the Inspector General in denying this benefit to the petitioner merely on the ground that he informed the Department a bit late, would sound unfair and unreasonable. The real issue to see would be whether the petitioner had possessed the degree on the date of his consideration for selection or not. It is not material if the petitioner had submitted the proof of his degree in time as he had provided the proof at the time of interview. Somewhat similar issue arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Charles K. Skaria and others Vs. Dr.C.Mathew and others, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1230. Here the Post-graduate diploma holders were considered and selected for admission to the Graduate Degree Course by giving them benefit of 10 marks as per the prospectus. The marks were awarded on receipt of information from the University after the last date for application but before the date of selection as their having obtained the diploma CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4097 OF 2011 :{ 6 }: before the last date of application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that selection could not be said to be vitiated merely because diplomas were not attached with the application but these were produced before the actual selection. While taking this view, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reversed the view of the High Court expressed in 1980 Ker LT 144. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in adding 10 marks for holders of diploma. To earn this extra 10 marks, diploma must be obtained atleast on or before the last date of application, not later. As is observed, proof of having obtained a diploma, is different from factum of having got it. The question posed was – Has the candidate in fact secured diploma before the final date of application for admission to the degree course? That is observed to be the primary question. It is further held that it is prudent to produce evidence of diploma alongwith the application but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is granted, can not be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma. The proof thereof sub-serves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor. The above ratio of law is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. Here also, what is to be seen is if the petitioner had obtained M.A. Degree before the final date of application and before the date of his consideration for selection. That would be the primary question. It would have been prudent for the petitioner to produce evidence of his degree at the time of his on line selection, which he CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4097 OF 2011 :{ 7 }: did only 3 to 4 days thereafter but it was before his selection. This would be secondary question. The academic excellence, for which the petitioner was required to be given extra marks, can not be denied because the proof of the same was produced only later but yet before the date of actual selection. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the emphasis would be on the degree and the proof thereof sub-serves the factum of possession of the degree and is not an independent factor. The Department Promotion Committee had rightly awarded marks to the petitioner and the action of the Inspector General in reducing 5 marks, rendering the petitioner less meritorious for selection is unfair and unreasonable and so can not be sustained. The impugned order passed by the Inspector General, HAP, Madhuban, is, therefore, set-aside. The assessment of the petitioner made by the Department Promotion Committee is up-held. The necessary consequence of this would be that the petitioner is held meritorious and entitled to be brought on list B1 on the basis of his merit in 2010 batch. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. August 23, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE