CWP No.2217 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2217 of 2009 Date of Decision:- March 19, 2010 Tejinder Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Kurukshetra University and others ...Respondents Present: Mr.S.S.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Virk, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Deepak Balyan, Advocate for Mr.M.S.Sidhu, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 8, 10 to 18. Mr.Anuraj Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.11. ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners challenge the selection to the post of the Lab Assistant stating that the 150 marks which had been assigned in the advertisement, had been changed after the advertisement was given, some time mid-stream to allow for a greater weightage for interview and for selection. The contention of the petitioner is that their performance in the written examination, merited their placement higher above all the private respondents but ultimately the petitioners were not selected by adopting wrong selection criteria. 2. The advertisement spells out that the selection would be made CWP No.2217 of 2009 -2- as per Clause (6) which is as follows:- “6. The prescribed essential qualification does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview. The University may shortlist the candidates for interview by holding written examination or on the basis of rational criterion to be adopted for the purpose.” 3. As per the advertisement, the University had a right to short list the candidates for interview on the basis of rational criterion to be adopted for the purpose. The statement filed on behalf of the University sets out the following as the criteria which had been set out for selection for candidates:- “Total marks for the selection of the candidate will be one hundred with the following distribution:- a) 50 Marks for written test i.e. 1/3 of the maximum. b) 10 Marks for educational qualifications. c) 10 Marks for experience. d) 30 Marks for Interview.” 4. As per the relevant criteria, it is seen that the written test obtained the consideration for 50% and for the remaining 50%, 30% was for interview, 10% was for experience and 10% was for educational qualification. By having to assess the relative grading on a percentage basis, a person who had been assessed for written test for 150 marks, could obtain a reckoning only for 1/3rd of the actual marks secured, so as to bring it within the percentage prescribed in the criteria. By the only fact that a percentage has been assigned at 50% for written test and the consequent slicing of the marks awarded in the written test, it cannot mean that the selection criteria as set out in the advertisement has been given a go by. On the other hand, the selection criteria referring to the short listing of candidates by the performance in written test has still been adhered and by the ultimate reckoning, if it is seen that interview merits a consideration of CWP No.2217 of 2009 -3- 30%, unless it is shown that the criteria laid down was arbitrary or capricious, an intervention by a Court order for the method of selection cannot be done. The criteria laid down providing for relative grading for educational qualification and experience besides written test and interview and assigning to them the percentage as I have already extracted above, does not suffer from any vice for subjecting it to judicial intervention. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ku.Rashmi Mishra Vs. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission 2006 (4) SCT and Umesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1985 SC 1351(1). Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed further reliance on judgment of Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Ashok Kumar Jain Vs. RFC and others 2009(1) SCT. This Court while considering the marks that could be awarded for interview and for written test, considered in Varun Vir Vs. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others in CWP No.10141 of 2008 with reference to the law on the issue, in the light of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court. The whole law has been set in its proper perspective by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P. And others 2000 (4) RSJ 439 and has held as under:- “The issue of how much marks would be appropriate to be assigned for interview shall be seen to be understood in the particular factual context and ability of the interview committee to draft the best talent. It shall not be possible to reject the selection criteria as arbitrary and bad by the only fact that 25 marks had been assigned out of 75 marks for interview.” 6. The writ petition thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. March 19, 2010 (K.KANNAN) Vt JUDGE