Case: Bhushan Kumar Puri Vs. State of Punjab and Others

This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the PunjabHaryana High Court dated November 14, 1977 allowing a writ petition made by the fourth respondent before us. By the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the decision of the Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) selecting the appellant for the post of Export Promotion Officer, directed the Commission to "hold the selection afresh" and gave certain directions for the purpose. The judgment appealed from marks the second chapter in the dispute concerning the selection.

Court's reasoning:
4. It appears from the affidavit that the Commission did not consider it necessary to readvertise the post or to call the candidates again for interview. There is also no direction either in the judgment of Harbans Lal, J. or in the judgment appeared from for readvertising the post. None of the parties who appeared before us also questioned the propriety of the decision taken by the Commission to confine the selection to among the candidates who had applied in response to the advertisement issued on September 10, 1975. It is therefore clear that the fresh selection had to be made in accordance with the conditions appearing in the said advertisement, one of which was that the candidates must pass the test in Punjabi before interview. If the Commission proposed to make the selection on the basis of the performance of the candidates at the last interview, the appellant was clearly not eligible for selection as he had not passed the test then. And if the Commission took note of the fact that the appellant had passed the test since then, it is only just that they should also take into consideration any qualification acquired by the other candidates in the meantime. It is to be remembered that the selection was being made about two years after the original selection had been set aside. If in these circumstances it is held, as the High Court has done, that the candidates should be interviewed again before the selection was made, we find no valid reason to interfere with that decision. We do not however think as the High Court does that the Commission has violated any principle of natural justice and we affirm the order of the high Court on the grounds mentioned above. We realise that it is a little hard on the appellant to have to compete again for the post for which he was twice preferred by the Commission on merit, but for the reasons we have already stated it is not possible to uphold the selection.