CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13244 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13244 of 2010 Date of decision: August 24, 2011 Usha Devi .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana & others. ....Respondents 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. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Manoj Kaushik, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 & 5. Mr. K.L. Dhingra, Advocate, for respondent Nos.7 to 14 and 17. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Haryana Staff Selection Commission advertised 247 posts of Social Studies Master in the Education Department of Haryana. Normal reservation for reserved category was provided including the horizontal reservation for 33% from women candidates. The petitioner claims that she being highly qualified, academically sound and fulfilled all the conditions for appointment to the said post against SC category, and had submitted her application. Keeping in view the large number of applications, the candidates were shortlisted by calling 8 times of the advertised posts in the respective CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13244 of 2010 -2- category for interview. Minimum cut off marks for SC category were fixed as 66% and notification to this effect was published on 18.5.2009. Cut off percentage for SC category was lowered from 66% to 60% through a corrigendum dated 19.5.2009 (Annexure P-3). Considering the eligibility and qualification, the petitioner was called for interview and she, accordingly, appeared. Select list was finally prepared and published. 16 candidates were selected in SC (female) category. The percentage of the last selected candidate was mentioned as 51.61%. After procuring copy of the criteria, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to impugn the selection urging that she was not awarded 5 marks for higher qualification. The petitioner had more marks as per the academic qualification, but was not selected by giving her less marks in the interview. The selected candidates had scored 51.61 marks out of total 90 marks, whereas the petitioner could score only 46.65 marks. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she was having the better qualifications and was to given more marks, but was ousted by giving her less marks during the interview. Notice of motion was issued. Reply is filed. The respondents would justify the assessment made, which is as per the well laid down criteria formulated much before the date of selection. As per the Commission, marks were awarded on the basis of concerned subject. The petitioner could not be given marks on the basis of higher qualification as she was not having admissible qualification required for the post having Post Graduate in Political Science. This was not considered valid and relevant for the post. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13244 of 2010 -3- Other submissions made are also denied and it is pointed out that the petitioner could not be selected because of being less meritorious. When the case came up for arguments before this Court on 11.8.2011, the record, which was summoned was perused. Since there was no mention made of the academic qualification of the selected candidates in the record, which was produced before the Court, the State counsel was directed to prepare a chart giving the list of 16 selected candidates indicating as to how much marks each one had obtained as per the academic qualifications and in the interview. The necessary affidavit has been filed and is handed over in the Court today. I have perused the marks of all the selected candidates. Academic qualification marks of the selected candidates varies between 33 to 36, whereas the petitioner was awarded 46.65 marks. The marks awarded to the selected candidates in affidavit cannot be termed as excessive as they are in the range of around 50% out of total 90 marks. Nothing can, therefore, be inferred from the record that will indicate that any favour has been shown to any selected candidate. The assessment seems to be fairly done. No case for interference, therefore is made out. Dismissed. August 24, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE