Civil Writ Petition No.2715 of 2010 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: July 19, 2010 Virender Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS The Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula ....Respondent 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. H.S.Rakhra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Being aggrieved against the action of the respondent-Commission to adopt the criteria for shortlisting the candidates for interview on the basis of cut off marks in the graduation, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for setting-aside the special instructions contained in the advertisement published by the respondent. Advertisement for various posts in different Departments of Haryana was issued on 28.10.2008 in Amar Ujala. The special Civil Writ Petition No.2715 of 2010 : 2 : instructions concerning the shortlisting of the candidates were as under:- “The prescribed essential qualification does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview. The Commission may short list the candidates for Interview by holding a written examination or on the basis of a rationale criterion to be adopted by the Commission. The decision of the Commission in all matters relating to acceptance or rejection of an application, eligibility/suitability of the candidates, mode of, and criteria for selection etc. will be final and binding on the candidates. No inquiry or correspondence will be entertained in this regard.” The grievance of the petitioner is that after more than one year of the advertisement, the respondent-Commission has decided to shortlist the candidates for category No.08, which is post of Naib Tehsildar on the basis of marks obtained in academic qualification of B.A./B.Com. Keeping in view the large number of applications, the Commission has decided to shortlist candidates 08 times of the advertisement posts in their respective category for interview and accordingly has provided minimum cut off for each category. For general category, the percent provided is minimum 70%, whereas for Scheduled Caste, it is 69%. The petitioner contends that this criteria is not rationale and would lead to pick and choose. As per the petitioner, it would have been more reasonable and rationale to provide for entrance test, which was also provided in the advertisement issued. Even in the special instructions impugned by the Civil Writ Petition No.2715 of 2010 : 3 : petitioner, it is clearly provided that the decision of the Commission in all matters relating to acceptance or rejection of application, eligibility/suitability of candidates, mode of, and criteria etc. will be final and binding on the candidates. Thus, it is only required to be seen if providing a cut off mark can be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary in any manner. The mode of providing cut off marks was held valid in Civil Writ Petition No.9323 of 2009, decided on 16.7.2009. In this regard, it was observed as under:- “Mode of providing cut off is a validly recognised one and the same if done cannot be termed arbitrary or discriminatory. In fact, all examinations across the world always provide for some cut off marks, be it pass marks or different grades for the purpose of giving divisions. These cut off marks varies from one exam to another, depending upon the level of excellence/output expected from the candidate, who is to qualify in such examination. Thus, setting up of such cut off marks as eligibility condition cannot be termed as arbitrary, irrational or unconstitutional.” As is well known and understood, pass marks for examination in all the subjects generally are 33% but for being eligible for appearing in Pre-Medical Test or other such like tests, eligibility criteria or cut off marks are always provided, which are generally 50% or above and that too on the basis of combination of subjects, which are relevant for further study in the course opted by a particular candidate. This can not be termed as arbitrary as there has to be some minimum criteria or cut off required to be provided either Civil Writ Petition No.2715 of 2010 : 4 : to short list or to make a candidate eligible. I do not see any infirmity, which would call for interference and as such, would dismiss this writ petition. July 19, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE