LPA No. 651 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 651 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 21, 2011 Sarika and others …Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Haripal Verma, Advocate for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed by the candidates belonging to reserved category of Scheduled Caste. They have challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 8 of Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch), Rules 1951 (for short 'the 1951 Rules') as applicable to Haryana, by urging that Rule 8 as amended in the year 2003 violates the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, inasmuch as it provides for uniform standard of securing qualifying marks of 50% in the aggregate of all papers including viva voce. The appellants have unsuccessfully argued before the learned Single Judge that keeping uniform standard of qualifying marks for general and reserved category is arbitrary LPA No. 651 of 2011 (O&M) -2- particularly when in the earlier years, the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class categories were considered with relaxed standard. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the appellants, Rule 8 of the 1951 Rules as it was amended in 2003 and applicable to the case of the appellants reads as under: “Rule 8 was amended yet again in 2003 to read:- “8(1) No candidates shall be considered to have qualified in the examination unless he obtains at least 50% marks in the aggregate of all papers including viva voce test. (2) The merit of the qualified candidates shall be determined by the Haryana Public Service Commission strictly according to the aggregate marks obtained in the written papers and viva voce. Provided that in the case of two or more candidates equal marks, the candidates older in age shall be placed higher in the order of merit.” 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length. 3. The only argument raised before us is that in the neighbouring State of Punjab as well as in Delhi, the qualifying marks in the written test are 45% for the member of the reserved category of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class whereas for general category the qualifying marks are 50%. On the basis of LPA No. 651 of 2011 (O&M) -3- the aforesaid provision made in Punjab and Delhi, the argument raised is that keeping the higher marks of 50% by the respondent- State of Harayana is discriminatory. 4. We are unable to appreciate the aforesaid argument. Firstly Article 16(4) and (4A) of the Constitution which enable the State Government to make any provision for reservation in public service or post which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented. If the state of Haryana has framed a rule of reservation then it cannot be concluded that it must be in conformity with rule for similar class of service prevailing in Punjab or Delhi. On that basis, it is not permissible to argue that there is hostile discrimination and on that basis the rule is liable to be declared as unconstitutional. The conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting admission of the appeal. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal. 5. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 6. In view of the dismissal of appeal on merit, we do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay of 75 days in filing of the instant appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE July 21, 2011 Atul