Sandeep Sharma, J
1. Vide Recruitment Notice dated 28th February, 2010 (Annexure P-6), respondents invited application from the candidates (male and female) for
filling up 1309 posts of constables in 12 Districts of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner being ST candidate applied against one post belonging to ST
category, falling in the share of Bilaspur District. The petitioner qualified the written as well as ground test and was called for an interview vide letter
dated 21.9.2010, as is evident from Annexure P-8. Alongwith other six candidates, petitioner appeared for the interview, but fact remains that he was
not selected, rather respondent No.6, namely, Sh. Rakesh Kumar was selected.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the selection of respondent No.6, petitioner approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein following reliefs:-
“(i) That the respondent No.1 to 3 may be directed to place on record the appointment letter issued to the respondent No.6 on the basis of final
result and same may be quashed and set-aside.
(ii) That a writ of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to constitute a separate interview board for
interviewing the candidates under ST/UR category.
(iii) That respondent No.1 to 3 may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment him as Constable under Scheduled Tribe i.e.
(ST/UR) category in the 6th Battalion.â€
3. Precisely, the allegation of the petitioner is that respondent No.6 was less meritorious than him, but since his father Sh. Dandu Ram was serving as
Sub Inspector in the police Department at the relevant time, he has been unduly favoured by the Interview Board while awarding marks in the
interview and as such, his selection deserves to be quashed.
4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, this Court finds that
out of 1309 posts of constables, 39 posts of constables (male and female) were to be filled up amongst the candidates hailing from District Bilaspur.
Besides above, five seats were to be filled up amongst left out vacancies i.e. 5th IRBn (female). It is also not in dispute that out of aforesaid
vacancies falling in the share of Bilaspur District, only one seat was reserved for ST candidate against which, petitioner, respondent No.6 and other
four candidates qualified.
5. Reply filed on behalf of the respondents reveals that the petitioner had secured 48 marks in written test, whereas respondent No.6 secured 41
marks and as such, they both being qualified were called for suitability-cum- personality test. However, petitioner secured only 15 marks in the ground
test, whereas respondent No.6 secured 21 marks and as such in total petitioner secured 68 marks, whereas respondent No.6 secured 67 marks.
Besides above, both the petitioner and respondent No.6 were awarded two marks each being distinguished sportsmen.
6. The grouse of the petitioner is that since he had secured more marks than respondent No.6 in written test, he could not have been awarded less
marks in the interview by the Interview Board. However, perusal of comparative merit list drawn in the case of ST category (Annexure P-9), itself
suggests that it was not only respondent No.6, who was awarded more marks then petitioner in the interview, rather all the candidates save and
except petitioner secured more than 5 marks, whereas petitioner secured 4.33 marks and as such, it is difficult to conclude that Interview Board with a
view to favour respondent No.6 purposely and intentionally granted less marks to the petitioner. Though, petitioner has stated that since father of
respondent No.6 was serving in police department at the time of selection, respondent No.6, has been favoured by the members of the Interview
Board, but mere such bald allegations leveled against the members of the Interview Board is not sufficient to conclude bias, if any, against the
petitioner, rather petitioner with a view to prove bias/ mala-fides ought to have levelled specific allegations against the members of the Interview
Board. Moreover, mere fact that father of respondent No.6 was serving in police at the time of selection is not sufficient to conclude that he with a
view to get his son selected approached the members of the Interview Board, which thereafter ignoring the merit of the petitioner selected respondent
No.6.
7. Leaving everything aside, comparative merit list drawn in the case of the ST category, as has been placed on record vide Annexure P-9, itself
suggests that respondent No.6 though had procured less marks then petitioner in the written but he secured 6 marks more than petitioner in ground
test. Otherwise also, deficiency/difference is not that much which could compel this Court to draw inference that petitioner was purposely not given
adequate marks with a view to give undue benefit to respondent No.6. There is a deference of only one mark between the petitioner and respondent
No.6 in marks awarded in written as well as ground test.
8. As has been observed hereinabove, no specific allegation, if any, against the members of the Interview Board has been leveled by the petitioner that
they subverted the merit with a view to help respondent No.6 and as such, selection of respondent No.6 cannot be said to be bad mere on the
allegations that respondent No.6 came to be appointed on the recommendation of his father, who at the relevant time was serving in the police
department. Otherwise also, marks in interview are supposed to be awarded on the basis of overall personality of the candidate and his/her general
awareness. Similarly, interview board is generally comprised of experts of various subjects and marks are awarded collectively but on the individual
assessment of each members of the Board. Interview board is required to assess the suitability of a candidate taking into consideration various factors,
having direct bearing on the work and conduct of the candidate which he/she can be assigned after his/her selection. Merely securing higher marks in
written test does not entitle a candidate to claim more marks in the interview, especially in comparison to candidate, who may not have fared well in
written but may have performed well in the interview. Leaving everything aside, expertise and wisdom of members of the interview board cannot be
doubted unless the candidate while alleging mala-fides and wrong-doings, if any, on the part of the interview board, places such material on record
which is sufficient to shock the conscience of the Court.
9. Though, this Court finds no unreasonableness in the decision of interview board in awarding more marks to respondent No. 6 but even otherwise,
while exercising writ jurisdiction, court cannot substitute its own views for that of wisdom of Selection Committee possessing technical expertise and
rich experience of actual day to day working of Police Department. Reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in
Central Board of Secondary Education versus Khushboo Shrivastava and others (2014) 14 Supreme Court Cases 523 w, herein it has been held as
under:-
“29….. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise,
prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich
experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to
make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grassroots problems involved in the
working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be
propounded.â€
10. Leaving everything aside, this Court having carefully perused the comparative merit list drawn against the seat of ST category finds that petitioner
is otherwise at Sr. No.3, meaning thereby, if appointment of respondent No.6 is held to be bad in law on the basis of the allegations levelled against
him, even then petitioner would not be selected against the seat reserved for ST category being second in waiting list. Otherwise also, during the
proceedings of the case, it has been informed that petitioner now stands selected in the police Department in subsequent recruitment.
11. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit alongwith pending application(s), if any.
