C.W.P. No.2848 of 1985 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.2848 of 1985 Date of Decision:- 27 .02.2008 Dalbar Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Gaurav Chopra, Advocate vs. State of Punjab & ors. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) In this civil writ petition, the petitioner seeks a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the communication dated 7.5.1985 sent by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab to the Director, State Transport, Punjab, recommending the names of the candidates selected for appointment as Chief Inspectors. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the Subordinate Services Selection Board to recommend his name for the aforestated post of Chief Inspector as per the Government instructions. [2] The Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab (in short 'the Board') invited applications for nine posts of Chief Inspectors/Welfare Inspectors for appointment in the Transport Department, Punjab. Out of these, three posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes, one for Backward C.W.P. No.2848 of 1985 -2- Class while three posts were meant for Ex-Servicemen candidates. In terms of Government instructions dated 5.5.1975 (Annexure R-2) read with instructions dated 12.5.1983(Annexure R-3), the reserved quota meant for Scheduled Castes has been further divided into inasmuch as 50% of the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes are required to be offered to the Balmikies and Mazbi Sikh candidates. [3] The petitioner, who belongs to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste and is a Balmiki, applied in response to the above-stated advertisement. A screening test was held on 14.2.1985 and the qualified candidates, were called for the interview on 20.3.1985 by the Board. However, in the final selection list sent by the Department concerned vide its memo dated 7.5.1985 (Annexure P-2), the name of the petitioner did not figure whereas the names of respondents No.3 and 4 were recommended for appointment. [4] It may be noticed here that while sending its recommendations, the Board selected six candidates only though nine posts were advertised by it. Out of the six, two candidates i.e. Respondents No.3 and 4 belong to the reserved category of Scheduled Castes. Since the name of the petitioner did not figure amongst the selected candidates, he has not only impugned the selection of respondents No.3 and 4 but has sought a further direction for his own selection. [5] Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their respective replies. [6] Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the documents on record perused. [7] Two-fold contentions have been raised on behalf of the C.W.P. No.2848 of 1985 -3- petitioner. Firstly, it is argued by his learned counsel that since nine posts were advertised by the Selection Board, out of which three were reserved for Scheduled Castes, it was imperative upon the Board to recommend nine candidates and in any case the Board ought to have recommended three candidates from Scheduled Castes category for whom three posts were reserved. Secondly, it is contended that since more than 50% marks were kept for interview, the very selection criteria adopted by the Board is arbitrary and does not stand to the touch-stone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of the second contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of :- (i) Ajai Hasia etc. Vs. Khalid Muzib Sehravardi and others, AIR 1981 SC 487, (ii)Ashok Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and another, AIR 1987 SC 454, and (iii) Vikram Singh and another vs. The Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana and others, AIR 1991 SC 1011 [8] It may further be noticed here that when this case was taken up for hearing on April 28, 2004, both the above-stated contentions were taken notice of and the official respondents were directed to produce the record/additional affidavits to explain as to whether (i) any minimum qualifying criteria was fixed by the Board and (ii) in what circumstances the appointments were restricted to six candidates only when nine posts were advertised. [9] In response thereto, an affidavit dated 21.5.2004 has been filed by Ms.Kiran Rosy, Secretary, Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab in which as regard to the issue No.1 referred to above, she has stated as C.W.P. No.2848 of 1985 -4- follows:- “2. That the case relates to year 1985 and since 1985 Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab has been constituted and reconstituted so many time. As such the record pertaining to this case could not be traced, in spite of stern efforts made by the Board. As such the deponent is unable to give correct information based on the original record. It is submitted that the total posts of scheduled castes were reduced from 3 to 2 and there was no such record available regarding issuance of corrigendum. In the absence of the selection record it is difficult to intimate that how many marks he obtained out of total 100 marks and rest of scheduled caste (other) candidates.” [10] With regard to the reduction of total posts from nine to six, she has pointed out that the same can be explained by the Department concerned only. Consequently, one more affidavit dated 18.5.2005 has been filed by Mr.R.K.Verma, Director, State Transport, Punjab. Paras 2 to 5 thereof read as follows. “2. That as per rule 9(6) of the Punjab Roadways (Operational) State Service Class-III Rules, 1977, 20% of posts in the case of Chief Inspectors or Welfare Inspector are to be filled up by direct appointment and 80% by way of promotion. In accordance with Appex “A” of the above said Rules there were total 31 sanctioned posts of Chief Inspector and Welfare Inspectors in the Transport C.W.P. No.2848 of 1985 -5- Department Punjab (21 permanent + 10 temporary= Total-31). 3. That the above said 31 posts 20% quota for direct appointment was of 6 posts accordingly. 4. That thereafter an amended requisition for 6 posts to be filled up by way of direct appointment was sent to the Secretary, Subordinate Service Selection Board vide this office memo. No.SE2(2)/6314 dated 5.3.85 after considering the fact that the number of posts under the Scheduled Caste category were reduced from 3 to 2. 5. That out of 6 posts 2 were for Scheduled Castes, 2 for Ex-servicemen and 2 for the general category.” [11] It is, thus, apparent that a conscious decision was taken by the Competent Authority after due application of mind and in terms of the statutory Service Rules which resulted into reduction of direct recruitment posts from nine to six. Since such an exercise falls exclusively within the domain of the Executive, no interference by this Court is called for. [12] As regard to the second contention, firstly, it may be noticed that out of the reduced six posts, only two were meant for the reserved category of Scheduled Castes against which the names of respondents No.3 and 4 were recommended. Defending its selection criteria, the Board in its original written statement dated September 24, 1985 has averred as follows:- “Para 3. The objective type test for the post of Chief Inspector/Welfare Inspector Roadways was held by this Respondent on 5.1.1985 and not on 14.2.85, as stated by C.W.P. No.2848 of 1985 -6- the petitioner. The petitioner who passed the test was called for interview on 20.3.1985. The Board conducted the interview on the basis of a standing criteria according to which 60 marks out of 100 are allotted for academic qualifications and 40 marks for viva voce/interview. The petitioner was not selected by the Board for the post of Chief Inspector/Welfare Inspector.” [13] It clearly emerges from the written statement and not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner also that the “objective type test” was merely a screening test and was not a 'written examination'. All those candidates who were short-listed after the said Screening test were called for interview. The Board fixed a criteria of 100 marks out of which 60 marks were allocated for the academic qualification(s) and 40 marks were kept for viva-voce/interview. The controversy as to whether or not more than 15% marks can be kept for interview/viva voce in a selection process with or without a written test, has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anzar Ahmed vs. State of Bihar and others, 1994 (1) SCC 150. It has been held by their Lordships that the criteria of not allotting more than twelve and half per cent marks for viva voce as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) would apply only in those cases where the selection process includes a competitive written examination followed by viva voce of the qualified candidates and that the said principle has no applicability to the cases where no written examination is provided. In my considered view, a 'screening test' meant for shortlisting the candidates cannot be compared with that of written examination in which the marks secured by a candidate are required C.W.P. No.2848 of 1985 -7- to be taken into consideration for determining his placement in the final merit list. No fault, thus, can be found with the selection criteria adopted and followed by the Board in the present case. [14] For the reasons aforestated, there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. February 27, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE