C.W.P. No.21625 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.21625 of 2008 Date of Decision:23.12.2008 Rajesh Sharma ............... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ............Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes K.KANNAN J. **** The petitioner considers himself suitable to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail, vis-a-vis the appointees namely Surender Singh and Deepak Sharma who were appointed, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission dated 07.12.2006. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he had secured information through Right to Information Act, 2005, to know that the criteria adopted for selection to the post was 45 marks for BA/B.Sc.; 5 marks for higher qualification and 25 marks for Viva Voce, totalling 75 marks. He has also known through the information supplied through Right to Information Act, 2005 that he had been awarded 36.45 marks (26.45 marks in academic qualification, Viva Voce 10 marks) out of 75 marks, while the respondents No.4 and 5 had been respectively awarded with 43.90 and 43.10 marks. His further contention was that respondents No.4 and 5 had been awarded 23 and 20 marks respectively for Viva Voce while he had been awarded only 10 marks. C.W.P. No.21625 of 2008 -2- 3. The insinuation against the selected candidates was that they had been deliberately awarded higher marks in the interview owing to the fact they had political connections and there had been no valid basis for getting such a criterion awarding as 25 marks for the interview. 4. Once it is seen that there had been relevant criteria laid down for selection and it is further noticed that the petitioner had marks which were less than respondents No.4 and 5, the consequence is inescapable that the petitioner cannot have any relief in his writ petition on the averments made on the facts disclosed. It has been laid down authoritatively by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the matter of selection of candidates in public appointments, the employer is entitled to devise his own relevant criteria and apportion marks between interview and qualifications in the manner the employer thought was appropriate, provided there was no arbitrariness in the entire scheme of selection. It has also been held in a catena of decisions such as Satpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1995 Supplement 1 SCC 206; Anzar Ahmad Vs. State of Bihar (1994) 1 SCC 150; Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan (1981) 4 SCC 159 that the Court will not interfere in the matters of selection under Article 226, if even in cases where higher percentage of marks have been awarded for interview. It is not possible to join issues with the petitioner's contention that there had been any bias in the selection, especially when the respondents have not been added in any individual capacity to attribute bias. 5. The writ petition is, therefore, without merits and deserves to be dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 23, 2008 Pankaj*