CWP No.3792 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.3792 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision : November 17, 2011 Manjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.K. Chopra, Advocate, Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, Ms. Maninder, Advocate, Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate, Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate, Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, Mr. M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Monica Chhiber Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This judgment shall dispose of 17 writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos.3792, 2019, 144, 1721, 8919, 8650, 3078, 3080, 5751, 3081, 5752, 6749, 7558 & 16671 of 2002, 18450, 19708 & 19710 of 2001, as common question of law and facts arises in all these cases, wherein a challenge has been made to a selection of Art and Craft teachers on the ground that proper criteria for selection was not followed by the selection committee and petitioners despite having obtained very high percentage of marks, were not selected. CWP No.3792 of 2002 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that in selection, conducted to the said posts, the selection committee did not consider marks for various higher qualifications possessed by the petitioners and selection was conducted in haphazard manner leading to arbitrariness. This apart, the percentage of marks awarded to the petitioners was fairly high. Still they were not selected and reasons for their rejection were never communicated to them. Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer. She submits that marks were correctly allotted to all the candidates as would be clear from the affidavits filed before this court. According to her, selection process was totally fair and impartial and no defect can be found with the same. She has emphasized that marks for higher qualification were not taken into consideration only in those cases where the diploma/degrees were not found to be from recognized institution(s). She has produced a chart to refer to the marks obtained by various candidates, which is taken on record as Mark 'A'. While referring to same, she submits that from a perusal thereof, it would be clear that petitioners scored lesser marks than the last candidates selected in various categories. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that pursuant to an advertisement dated 29th March, 2001, issued by the Punjab Education Department for recruitment of 128 posts of Art and Craft teachers, the petitioners CWP No.3792 of 2002 3 applied as they were fulfilling requisite qualifications. They were issued roll numbers and they appeared before the selection committee for interview. Having participated and failed, they preferred the instant writ petitions impugning the selection process. One of the grounds for assailing the selection is that marks were not correctly awarded by the selection committee on the basis of the qualifications as well as experience possessed by various candidates. A perusal of the affidavits filed by the State, however, shows that selection process was held by a duly constituted selection committee. It interviewed all the candidates and awarded marks on the basis of their merit. There is nothing on record to show that there was any discrepancy in the selection process and the consequent result. The petitioners having participated and not succeeded, have levelled number of allegations. These are, however, not supported by any concrete evidence. The selection committee having been duly constituted and there being no irregularity in conduct of selection, interference in writ jurisdiction of this court would not be called for. The selection took place way back in the year 2002 and the selected candidates may have been working on the posts for number of years by now. Break up of the marks obtained by the petitioners as well as the last candidates selected in various categories, as given by the State counsel in the shape of a chart prepared on the basis of the affidavits/replies filed before this court, is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- CWP No.3792 of 2002 4 LIST OF CASES Case No. Parties Name Marks obtained Marks obtained by last candidate in General category/ Reserved category. CWP No.3080/02 1. Sukhwinder Singh s/o Naranjan Singh 2. Tehal Singh s/o Joginder Singh 54.14 (G.C.) 51.38 S.C. (R) G.C. 54.67 SC (R) 53.05 CWP No.3078/02 Renu Sharma D/o Prem Chand 53.38 (out of 100) G.C. 59.24 CWP No.5751/02 Jatinder Pal s/o Joginder Pal 49.63 G.C. G.C. 59.92 CWP No.19710/01 Sawinder Singh s/o Harjit Singh 54.34 G.C. G.C. 54.92 CWP No.3081/02 CWP No.19708/01 1. Surinder Kaur d/o Jarnail Singh 2. Mohinder Kaur d/o Baldev Singh Malkiat Singh s/o Late Gurtej Singh 45.16 (Ex-servicemen category) 46.47 (Ex-servicemen category) 54.07 G.C. Ex-servicemen category) 48.36 -do- G.C. 54.92 (Last candidate in waiting list G.C. 54.67) CWP No.2019/02 1. Ajwant Singh 2. Baljeet Singh 3. Amarbir Singh 4. Jaswant Singh 5. Payalpreet Singh 6. Sanjeev Kumar 7. Gurminder Singh 8. Manpreet Singh 9. Pawan Kumar 10. Gurwinder Singh 11. S. Rajwinder Singh 12. Gurmeet Singh 13. Navdeep Singh 14. Baldev Singh 15. Sukhjinder Singh 16. Harmeet Singh 17. Parminder Singh Pannu 18. Parminderbir Singh 19. Ramesh Kumar 20. Navdeep Singh 52.03 G.C. 54.40 G.C. 54.07 G.C. 52.20 G.C. 53.10 G.C. 49.12 G.C. 50.79 G.C. 50.65 G.C. 48.55 G.C. 53.42 G.C. 50.80 G.C. 50.10 G.C. 47.48 G.C. 49.20 G.C. 53.37 G.C. 49.57 G.C. 48.86 G.C. 54.48 G.C. 44.24 (S.C.) 50.82 (S.C.) G.C. 54.92 (Last Candidate in waiting list G.C. 54.67) Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do (S.C.) (S.C.) CWP No.5752/02 Kuldeep Kaur d/o Piara Singh 55.82 (G.C.) Last candidate G.C. 59.24 CWP No.3792 of 2002 5 Case No. Parties Name Marks obtained Marks obtained by last candidate in General category/ Reserved category. CWP No.19167/01 Kuldeep Singh & Anr. (53 Candidates) Challenging Annexure P/1 & P/3 dated 26.11.2001 as in violation of Punjab rules Class. III School Cadre rules 1955 as amended in 13.02.65 Different w/p needs to be segregated. CWP 3792/02 Manjeet Singh s/o Harjinder Singh 49.11 G.C. G.C. 54/92 CWP 1721/02 Sheela Devi CWP 1667/02 Bikramjit Kaur Dhillon 52.52 Out of sports category) Last selected female candidate sports category 53.80 marls. CWP8722/02 Harmanjit Singh CWP 6749/02 Daljit Singh s/o Bant Singh To consider and appoint petitioner as arts and craft teacher under SC Majhbi/ Balmiki category granting 50% vacancies as per policy/ instructions P/6 to P/8. State's stand-due reservation given in view of instructions dated 30.12.96 and 21.08.1997 (R-1 and R-2) petitioner got total 43.55 marks candidate at Roll No.408-3566 rightly selected CWP No.8919/02 1. Gagandeep Singh s/o Amlok Singh 2. Amandeep Singh s/o Prakash Singh 52 (G.C.) 49.63 G.C. Last selected candidate in G.C. 54.92 and in waiting list 54.67 CWP 7558/02 Ramesh Kumar s/o Gopal Dass Irregularities in teaching experience certificate (R-1) petitioners marks 44.17 B.C. Category. Last selected candidate in B.C. Candidate 53.10 CWP 8659/02 Jagmit Singh s/o Tarlok Singh Total marks 49.60 freedom fighter category i.e. 26.33 Acadamic 19.27 Professional 4 in interview Last selected candidate in freedom fighter has 51.74 and Academic 27.21 Professional 19.53 Interview 6. A perusal of the aforesaid chart shows that none of the petitioners in the general as well as reserved categories obtained higher marks than the last candidate selected in the respective categories. In CWP No.3792 of 2002 6 such a situation, the only question which remains for consideration is regarding the manner, in which the marks were allotted. Suffice is to say that selection committee was an expert body for the purpose of awarding marks to the candidates on the basis of their qualification, experience, merit and performance in interview. No defect or irregularity having been pointed out with the said selection process, this court would refrain from interference in the same. The petitions are, thus, without any merit and are hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE November 17, 2011 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No