Shri Kanwar
Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors [1997] INSC 232 (3 March 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
O R D
E R Delay condoned.
This
special leave petition arises from the judgment of the division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, made on October 1,1996 in CWP No.15380/96.
Admittedly,
the petitioner was promoted on an earlier occasion temporarily, as Assistant
Sub Inspector in the year 1988 but ultimately the same came to be challenged
and was set aside by an order of this Court. Thereafter, as per the directions
of this court, written examination and interview were conducted. In the written
examination. the petitioner secured 105 marks . subordinate service selection
Board has allotted 75% of the marks to the written test and 25% of marks to the
interview. The petitioner having secured 105 marks, could not be selected since
he could not make up in the interview. as many as 97 candidates were selected.
The petitioner having remained unsuccessful, filed writ petition in the High court
challenging the selection process. He contended that since he had previous
experience, some weightage would have been given out of 25% marks on the basis
of the previous experience. However, since no consideration in that behalf was
given, the selection was bad in law, The High court has pointed out and in our
view rightly, that it is a competition open to all the persons.
By
fortuitous circumstances of the previous temporary promotion, separate marks
could not be allocated for the previous service in which event such persons
will steal a march over the other candidates in the open competition. The view
taken by the High court is clear, justifiable and well founded. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has contended that the persons who secured 80 marks
in written examination have been selected by granting full 25 % of the marks
while the petitioner who secured 105 marks in the written examination could not
be selected by being awarded some out of 25 marks. As a consequence, the
selection is arbitrary. The learned counsel seeks to place before us the list
of such candidates who secured 80 marks, said to have been published by the
Board. Since the document had not been made part of the record in the High
Court, we cannot look into the document. It is not the case of the petitioner
that he had raised this point in the High court and the High court has failed
to consider it . On the other hand, the High Court has pointed out thus:
"Records
now before us show that the petitioner did not do fairly wall to get high marks
at the interview. consequently, persons who got similar marks as that secured
by the petitioner in the written test, got higher rank by virtue of the marks
secured by them at the interview. Marks in the written test together with that
obtained at the interview decided the rank in the select list." It
indicates that the High court has considered the record of the selection Board
placed before it and on comparative evaluation of the candidates who secured
combined marks in the written test as well as in the interview, 97 candidates
were selected on the basis of the merit, the High court has pointed out that no
allegation of mala fides or arbitrariness of selection was made. Under these
circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the High court
warranting interference.
The
special leave petition is dismissed.
Back
Pages: 1 2