CWP No. 2627 of 1995 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: CWP No. 2627 of 1995 Dharam Pal Sharma ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 9540 of 1995 Avtar Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 12018 of 1996 Kuldip Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 1610 of 1995 Gurinder Singh ......Petitioner CWP No. 2627 of 1995 2 Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 1611 of 1995 Ravinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 1676 of 1995 Sat Pal ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 1677 of 1995 Subhash Chander ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 2292 of 1995 Kuldip Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 2369 of 1995 CWP No. 2627 of 1995 3 Jasjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 2370 of 1995 Lal Chand ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No.2371 of 1995 Niranjan Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 2528 of 1995 Amrik Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 2587 of 1995 Vijay Kumar ......Petitioner CWP No. 2627 of 1995 4 Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 2851 of 1995 Mohinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CWP No. 2970 of 1995 Manjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 3054 of 1995 Gurdeep Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 3285 of 1995 Sucha Lal ......Petitioner CWP No. 2627 of 1995 5 Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 3487 of 1995 Lakhwinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 3508 of 1996 Amrik Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 4121 of 1995 Jawahar Lal etc. ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 4463 of 1995 Prem Chand Sharma ......Petitioner CWP No. 2627 of 1995 6 Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 4566 of 1995 Harbhajan Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 4759 of 1995 Major Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CWP No. 4822 of 1995 Gursharan Jit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CWP No. 5699 of 1995 Manjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 2627 of 1995 7 CWP No. 6184 of 1995 Ram Lal ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 7788 of 1995 Rakesh Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 7808 of 1995 Sukhdarshan Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.S.Brar, Advocate Mr.Swaran Sandhir, Advocate, Ms.Divya Godara, Advocate, Mr.Balram Singh, Advocate and, Mr.Harnek Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.A.S.Grewal, Addl.A.G.Punjab with Mr.R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Saurabh Arora, Advocate and CWP No. 2627 of 1995 8 Mr.Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate for the private respondents. **** SABINA, J. Vide the above mentioned Civil Writ Petitions, the petitioners have challenged the selection/ appointment of Social Education and Panchayat Officers (SEPOs for short) made in December, 1994. Therefore, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. The facts are being narrated from CWP No.2627 of 1995. The case of the petitioner, as stated in the petition, in brief, is that on 20.9.1992, an advertisement was issued inviting the applications for various posts of SEPOs. The number of posts were not specifically mentioned in the advertisement. The candidates were required to have qualified the Bachelor of Arts Examination or its equivalent. The petitioner (as well as other petitioners) was fully eligible for the post of SEPO and applied for the same. A written test was held on 4.7.1993. About 11,000 candidates took the test. 5500 candidates qualified the test and were called for the interview. Departmental Selection Committee interviewed the successful candidates in 45 days. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, the department, without circulating the selection list, selected the candidates for the posts of SEPOs and issued appointment letters to them. The appointments had been made in a very secret manner without verification of the antecedents of the candidates. Respondent No.3 Sanjeev Kumar was nephew of Som Nath, MLA Barnala. Respondent No.4 Daljit Singh was brother of Isher Singh CWP No. 2627 of 1995 9 MLA, Kupkalan, Ludhiana. Respondent No.5 Balraj Singh was son of Baldev Singh, Superintending Engineer, Panchayati Raj, Punjab. Respondent No.6 Ajaib Singh was a close relative of Additional Director, Panchayati Raj, Punjab. Respondent No.7, Gurinder Singh was brother of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Rajpura and, Respondent No.8 Akbar Ali was relative of Parliamentary Secretary to Punjab Government. Respondent No.9 Karamjit was not residing at the address disclosed by him. Respondent No.10 Rana Partap Singh was a close relative of Darshan Singh Brar, Chairman, Punjab Agro Industries. The petitioner had come to know that the answer sheets of the selected candidates had been replaced by giving them more marks. Respondents No.1 and 2, in their written statement, averred that the petitioners had scored lesser marks than the selected candidates. The select list had been duly displayed on the notice board of respondent No.2 and, thereafter, individual letters of appointment were sent to the selected candidates through registered post. Since the posts were lying vacant since long, the appointment letters were issued subject to the verification to be sent by the concerned District Magistrates. It was denied that the appointed candidates were kith and kin of any politician or bureaucrat etc. The address of Karamjit Singh had been wrongly typed as H.No.82/ P-4 Model Town, Patiala instead of H.No.82/B-4 Model Town, Patiala. It was further averred that at the time of issuance of the advertisement, 19 vacancies of SEPOs were available. Thereafter, 11 posts became available and therefore, 30 persons were selected and appointed. Fresh selection of 11 posts would have entailed greater CWP No. 2627 of 1995 10 financial implications and resulted in loss of public money. 100 marks were allotted for the written examination and 15 marks were allotted for the interview. Respondent No.31, in his written statement, admitted the issuance of advertisement qua filling up of the posts of SEPOs. Only those candidates were to be called for interview who had obtained atleast 45% marks (General Category) and 33% marks (Reserved Category) in the written examination. Initially the advertisement was issued for filling up of 19 vacancies but during the pendency of the selection process, 11 posts fell vacant and consequently, the selection was made for 30 posts. The selection committee comprised of Director, Rural Development and Panchayat as Chairman and the Joint Secretary, Development Commissioner, Ex.Deputy Director Sainik Welfare Ex Serviceman, Superintending Engineer, PWD( Electric Wing) and Sh.Rattan Singh from Personnel Department as members. Candidates were duly interviewed by the Selection Committee. Since the petitioner had obtained lesser marks, he was not selected for the post of SEPO. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that a common written test was held for the posts of Block Development and Panchayat Officers (BDPOs for short) and SEPOs. The selection process qua appointment of BDPOs was under challenge in this Court and the said selection was set aside by this Court vide judgment dated 5.7.1994 as reported in 1994 (4) RSJ 157. Hence, the selection/appointment of SEPOs was also liable to be quashed. Learned State counsel has submitted that the decision of this court in Shiv Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others 1994 (4) CWP No. 2627 of 1995 11 RSJ 157 was not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the posts of SEPOs were Class III posts and the selection committee could fill up the said posts. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the persons who had been appointed as SEPOs were continuing in service for the last 17 years. Out of the appointed candidates, four of them had died and their families were receiving family pensions. It would be inequitable at this stage to set aside the selection after so many years. Learned state counsel has placed reliance on Budhhi Nath Chaudhary and others vs. Abahi Kumar and others (2001) 3 SCC 328, wherein it was held as under:- “We have extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who have worked in the post for a long period, but the contesting respondents do not come in that class. The effect of our conclusion is that appointments made long back pursuant to a selection need not be disturbed.” Learned counsel for the private respondents have submitted that the decision given by this Court in Shiv Kumar's case (supra) was not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present selection, only 15 marks had been kept for the interview. The allegations that some of the relatives of the politicians or bureaucrats had been given appointments were false. The petitioners had not challenged the veracity of the written test. The veracity of the written test had also not been challenged in the petition, whereby the selection of the BDPOs was questioned. The CWP No. 2627 of 1995 12 result of the selected candidates was not required to be published and had been duly put up on the notice board. The seats were also liable to be reserved for the Ex-Servicemen to the extent of 15% as per the amended Rule of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 (the Rules for short). The thrust of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the writ petition was liable to be allowed in terms of the decision given by this Court in Shiv Kumar's case (supra). In order to appreciate as to whether the present petitions are also covered by the decision in Shiv Kumar's case (supra), I have carefully gone through the said judgment. A perusal of the judgment passed in Shiv Kumar's case (supra) reveals that the selection of BDPOs was set aside on various counts. The first ground for quashing the selection was that requisition to fill up 28 vacancies to Punjab Public Service Commission (Commission for short) sent on 5.6.1993 was withdrawn. The Government, in fact, and in reality wanted to exclude the commission from going through the process of selection. The commission had brought to the notice of the Government that it was not in the public interest to withdraw the requisition against which 11,000 applications had already been received and the candidates had incurred an expenditure of ` 100/- each and in case the requisition was withdrawn, there would be legal complications and hardship to the candidates. However, the Government went on to make the appointments through Departmental Selection Committee on ad hoc basis. In para 19 of the judgment, it was held as under:- CWP No. 2627 of 1995 13 “After hearing learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and going through the records of the case, this court is of the considered view that selection and appointments of respondents 7 to 39 in pursuance of advertisement, Annexure P-1, is bad from beginning to end. The Government issued advertisement, Annexure P-1, on September 27, 1992. Intent letter to the Commission for recruitment of very posts advertised through Annexure P-1 was sent on January 5, 1993 and the Commission had actually issued an advertisement which was published on behalf of the Commission on June 26, 1993. In pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Commission, 9000 candidates had applied for the posts of BDPOs whereas 2000 candidates had applied for the of Development Officers (Women Programme). If there was actually some emergency in the matter, details of which have not been given either in the written statement nor specified by the Advocate General at the time of arguments but for saying that the post of BDPO is a pivotal one and non-filling thereof was causing tremendous less to the State, it is wholly un- understandable as to why after issuing advertisement, Annexure P-1, on September 27, 1992, written test was held after a period of about eleven months. The dates of interview, as referred to above, were from October 12, 1992 to October 14, 1993 i.e. after a period of three months when test was held and ultimately the CWP No. 2627 of 1995 14 appointments were made in November/ December, 1993 i.e. after a period of a year and three months from the initial issuance of advertisement inviting applications. In all probability, if the Commission had gone through the process of selection, appointments would have been made at the same time as were made by recruiting respondents 7 to 39 in pursuance of Annexure P-1. The very basis of pressing into service the instructions Annexure RO1, under the 1955 Regulations, is, thus completely knocked out. In view of this Court, instructions mentioned above have been relied upon simply with a view to defend the selection and appointment of respondents 7 to 39 to provide same resemblance of defence which is otherwise non-existent. The instructions were otherwise not applicable as even though initially requisition was sent to the Commission for filling up posts on regular basis, the said requisition was admittedly withdrawn. It is only pending recommendations by the Commission that the Government could fill up posts on adhoc basis in public interest and that too if there was dire necessity for making adhoc appointments. No details of the Government suffering any loss or public interest involved for making adhoc appointments have been given in the written statement. It was, thus, certainly not a case of dire necessity where the Government had no choice but for to make adhoc appointments." CWP No. 2627 of 1995 15 The second ground for quashing the selection was that after examining the records of selection and minutes of proceedings undertaken by the selection committee, this court found that the candidates who had secured more marks in the written test were given less marks in the interview and the candidates, who had less marks in the written test were given higher marks in the interview. Some of the selected candidates were closely related to politicians or bureaucrats and hence, this Court held that the selection through Commission was done away and resort was made to instructions issued under 1955 regulations simply with a view to thwart merit and make appointments of those who were chosen favourites of the Government for one reason or the other. In para 22 of the judgment, it was held as under:- "The Court had called for the records of selection and minutes of proceedings undertaken by the Selection Committee. Only illustrations would demonstrate that it is a case of selection which may be based on any other thing but it is certainly not based on merits. A candidate who secured 91 marks and was placed at serial No.35 in the merit list, was one who had obtained fifth highest marks in the written test. Persons shown at Sr.Nos. 1 and 2 had obtained 00 and 96 marks respectively,whereas, persons shown at Sr.Nos.26 and 44 had obtained 92 marks in the written test. As mentioned earlier, candidate mentioned at Sr.No.35 had obtained 91 marks. He was, thus, 5th in the merit list in so far as written test is concerned. He has admittedly not CWP No. 2627 of 1995 16 been selected. As compared to that, candidate shown at Sr.No.29, who had obtained 68 marks in the written test, as also the one at Sr.No.28, who had obtained 70 marks in the written test and those who had obtained 73, 75, 76 and likewise were selected and appointed by obviously, giving them far higher marks in the interview as compared to those who had obtained far higher marks in the written test. It is true that mere fact that some of the selected candidates were closely related to politicians or bureaucrats, who yield considerable influence and have clout with those who are in power, is not in itself enough to hold the selection to be bad but appointments of such persons coupled with the facts that have been mentioned above, leave this Court with no choice but for to hold that the selection through Commission was done away and resort was made to instructions issued under 1955 Regulations simply with a view to thwart merit and make appointments of those who were chosen favourites of the Government for one reason or the other." It was further held that the written test was taken after about 11 months of the issuance of the advertisement and the interviews were held three months thereafter and the select list was released on 26.11.1993. Thereafter, the appointments were made. The said act was against the instructions of the Government. It was further held that five persons had been appointed as Assistant Project Officers and the said posts had not been even mentioned in the advertisement. CWP No. 2627 of 1995 17 Another ground that weighed with this Court was that the written test was of 100 marks and the interview on various counts contained an aggregate of 50 marks. The allocation of such high marks for interview was against the dictum of the Apex Court. While dealing with this ground, it was held as under:- “"Before we conclude with this judgment, we would like to mention that one of the main arguments raised in this case was allocation of 33% marks in the interview. As referred to above, written test was of 100 marks. The interview on various counts contained an aggregate of 50 marks. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others vs. State of Haryana and others, 1987 SC 454, Vikram Singh and another vs. S.S.S. Board, Haryana, 1991 (1) RSJ 446, Sri Ashom @ Somana Gowda and another vs. State of Karnataka and others, 1992 (1) RSJ 99 and Mohinder Sain Garg vs. State of Punjab and others JT 1990(4) SC 704 and Krishan Yadav and another vs. State of Haryana and others, Civil Appeal No. 736 of 1993 decided on May 12, 1994, to contend that allocation of such high marks i.e. 33% was against the dictum of the Supreme Court in the cases cited above and was done with a view to exclude merit and to appoint persons on extraneous considerations whereas, the learned Advocate General, Punjab and Mr.Patwalia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have relied upon State of U.P. vs. Rafiquddin and Others, AIR 1988 SC 162, and Anzar CWP No. 2627 of 1995 18 Ahmad vs. State of Bihar and others JT 1993 (6) SC 168 so as to persuade us to take a different view and to hold that prescription of 33% marks was reasonable in the facts and circumstances of this case. All that we need to emphasize here is that if both written examination and viva voce test are accepted as essential features of proper selection in a given case, the question may arise as to the weight to be attached respectively to them. There can not be any hard and fast rule regarding the precise weigh to be given to viva voce test as against the written examination. It must vary from service to service according to the requirement of the service, the minimum qualification prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the viva voce test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. From the variety of relevant facts, noted above, i.e. The posts under contention, requirement of service, minimum qualification prescribed etc., we are, however, of the view that in this case prescription of 33% marks is on the higher side. We are not going into great details as regards prescription of 33% marks for interview for the simple reason that selection and appointments of respondents 7 to 39 requires to be quashed on the other grounds as have been detailed and discussed above." However, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the judgment passed in Shiv Kumar's case (supra) CWP No. 2627 of 1995 19 was given on the facts of the said case. The facts of the present case are different. In the present case, the selection process was admittedly to be conducted by the Departmental Selection committee, whereas, in the case of selection of BDPOs, the selection was to be held by the Commission. The Government had withdrawn the selection process from the Commission and had made the selection through the Selection Committee although the Commission had already advertised the posts of BDPOs. From a perusal of the judgment in Shiv Kumar's case (supra), it is apparent that the main ground on which the selection of BDPOs was set aside was that the Government had withdrawn the selection process from the Commission after advertisement of the posts without any sufficient cause. However, such situation does not arise in the present petitions. Although a common written test was held for the posts of BDPOs and SEPOs but that in itself is not sufficient to quash the selection process in the present petitions on the ground that the selection process in the case of BDPOs had been set aside. In Shiv Kumar's case (supra) no fault was found by this Court qua the written test. Even during the course of arguments in the present petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners have not challenged the veracity of the written test. Para Nos. 10 to 12 of the CWP No.2627 of 1995 read as under:- “10. That all the candidates who have been appointed as SEPOs are kith and kin of the one or the other CWP No. 2627 of 1995 20 politicians or bureaucrats. The details or the relationship of these selected candidates with politicians/ bureaucrats is mentioned hereunder for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court:- a) Respondent No.3 Shri Sanjeev Kumar is a nephew of Shri Som Nath, MLA Barnala. b) Respondent No.4 Daljit Singh is the brother of MLA Shri Isher Singh, Kupkalan, Ludhiana. c) Respondent No.5 is the son of Shri Baldev Singh, Superintending Engineer, Panchayati Raj, Punjab. d) Respondent No.6 Ajaib Singh is the close relative of the Additional Director, Panchayati Raj, Punjab. e) Respondent No.7, Gurinder Singh is the brother of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Rajpura. f) Respondent No.8 Shri Akbar Ali is a relative of Parliamentary Secretary to Punjab Government. 11. It is relevant to point out here that Respondent No.9 Karamjit Singh who has been shown as resident of 82/ P- 4 Model Town, Patiala does not reside at the address given in the appointment letter and actually there is no constructed house at plot No. 82/ P-4 Model Town, Patiala. However, a translated copy of the appointment letter issued to one of the private respondents (selected candidates) is annexed as Annexure P-5 to this writ CWP No. 2627 of 1995 21 petition. Similar appointment letters have been issued to other private respondents also which are not being annexed for the sake of brevity. 12. That it is further relevant to mention here that one Rana Partap Singh, who has been appointed as SEPO, is a close relative of Shri Darshan Singh Brar, Chairman, Punjab Agro Industries. He appeared in the written test and it is to the knowledge of the petitioner that however, he could not pass the same and accordingly he was not even called for in the interview list. Inspite of the fact that he was not even called for interview but still he has been appointed as SEPO only because of the fact that he happens to be a close relative of Shri Darshan Singh Brar, Chairman, Punjab Agro Industries.” Reply filed by the State to the aforementioned paras reads as under:-