CWP No.2740 of 1993 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.2740 of 1993 (O & M) Date of decision : 3.5.2011 Badhai Lonia ........Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present:- Mr.R.N.Raina, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Daman Dhir, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Anu Pal, AAG, Punjab --- PERMOD KOHLI, J (Oral) : Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala by its advertisement dated 30.3.1991 published in English daily 'The Tribune' invited applications for 20 posts of PCS (Executive Branch), 3 posts of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and 5 posts of Assistant Employment Officer to be filled through written examination and viva voce. The petitioner in response to the aforesaid advertisement applied as Backward Class candidate. It is stated that no post was reserved for Backward Class candidate out of 20 posts of PCS (Executive Branch). Only 1 post out of 5 posts of Assistant Employment Officer was reserved for Backward Class candidates. Number of posts for PCS (Executive Branch) were later increased from 20 to 28 yet again no post was reserved for the Backward Class candidate. The petitioner applied for the post under Backward Class category. He appeared in the preliminary test conducted on 1.9.1991 against Roll No.5614. He was CWP No.2740 of 1993 (O & M) -2- declared successful in the preliminary test and appeared in the main examination held in January 1992. He was also called for viva voce held on 16.3.1992. The petitioner was one amongst 3 Backward Class candidates. The other two candidates were Sukhdev Singh and Janak Raj. Result of the examination was published in the newspaper and Sukhdev Singh (respondent No.3) was declared selected. The petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent No.3-Sukhdev Singh and also the candidature of respondent No.4, particularly, that they were not eligible as Backward Class candidates under the Government Instructions as their income was beyond the prescribed limit of ` 10,000/-per year. It is not necessary to go into the various aspects and questions raised in the writ petition except the one. Rule 13-A (3)(4)(5) described the criteria for selection. The same is reproduced hereunder - “Rule 13-A – (1) & (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) No candidate shall be eligible to appear in the viva voce unless he obtains 45% marks in aggregate of all the subjects including at least 33% marks in Punjabi (in Gurmukhi Script) provided that if at any main competitive examination a sufficient number of candidates do not obtain 45% marks in the aggregate, the Commission may at their discretion lower this percentage to not below 40%, percentage for the language paper i.e. Punjabi in Gurmukhi Script, remaining unchanged. (4) No candidate shall be considered to have qualified in the main competitive examination unless he obtains at least 45% marks in the aggregate, in all subject including viva voce exception in case of any main competitive examination for which this percentage has been lowered to not less than 40% by the Commission under the proviso to regulations 3 in which case the qualifying percentage shall be as determined by the Commission. CWP No.2740 of 1993 (O & M) -3- (5) The compulsory and optional subjects and the maximum marks fixed for each subject for the main competitive examination shall be as shown in the statement below - Sr.No. Subject Maximum 1 English 100 2 Essay 75 Note : The candidate may opt to write the Essay either in English or Punjabi (in Gurmukhi Script) 3 Punjabi (in Gurmukhi script) 100 4 General Knowledge 100 5 Viva voce 75 Total 450 Under the said Sub Rule (3) of Rule 13-A, a candidate is eligible to appear in viva voce only if he secures 45% marks in aggregate of all the subjects including at least 33% marks in Punjabi. Sub Rule (4) further provides that no candidate shall be considered to have qualified in the main competitive examination unless he obtains 45% marks in aggregate in all the subjects including viva voce. The Public Service Commission in its reply has categorically stated that the petitioner failed to obtain required standard of merit i.e. 645 marks in the aggregate including viva voce and thus, he could not be selected. It is further stated that respondent No.3 was higher in merit amongst the Backward Class Category candidates and his name was accordingly recommended for appointment. The petitioner, however, disputed the averments made in the reply and pleaded that he has secured the requisite standard of marks. Vide order dated 25.4.2011 official respondents were directed to produce the result of the petitioner, both of the written examination and viva voce on the next date of hearing and also the running roster maintained for the PCS (Executive Branch). Respondents have produced the result. Petitioner has secured 326 marks out of 725 marks in total for the main competitive examinations including the compulsory and CWP No.2740 of 1993 (O & M) -4- optional subjects. 75 marks were fixed for viva voce. The petitioner has secured 12 marks out of 75 marks in the viva voce whereas 45% of 75 marks comes to 33 marks. Similarly, out of total 725 marks, 45% comes to 326 marks whereas the petitioner has secured 326 marks out of 725 marks. Thus, the petitioner has not been able to secure the minimum prescribed grade. In view of the above, without considering the other aspects, this petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 3.5.2011 akm