Parbhash Chand Vs State of Haryana and Others

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 25 Jul 2013 CWP No. 15054 of 2011
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

CWP No. 15054 of 2011

Hon'ble Bench

M.M.S. Bedi, J

Advocates

K.S. Banyana, for the Appellant; P.S. Punia, Addl. AG, Haryana, Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate for Respondent No. 2, Mr. Gunjan Rishi, Advocate for Respondent No. 3 and Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Dismissed

Judgement Text

Translate:

M.M.S. Bedi, J.@mdashThe petitioner has sought the quashing of selection of respondent No. 3 & 4 on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical)

in Scheduled Caste category claiming that the selection has been in violation of rules and instructions. The main grievance of the petitioner is that

the selection has not been conducted fairly. On the basis of written examination, the petitioner claims to have secured 59 marks and his position in

the merit list was 09, whereas, respondent No. 3 & 4 have not even secured the pass marks in the screening test as respondent No. 3 is alleged to

have secured 20 marks and respondent No. 4 has secured only 16 marks, and their ranks were 158 and 159 respectively.

2. The claim of the respondent No. 1 is that in view of large number of applications having been received the written screening test was only meant

for shorting-listing the candidates for interview. The marks obtained in the written screening test are not to be counted for the final selection. For

each category, the candidates, three times the number of posts advertised were called for interview after screening test which was meant for short-

listing the candidates to the posts reserved to that category. At the time of calling the candidates, it was found that only 159 candidates belonging

to Scheduled Caste category had appeared in the written examination, whereas, 67 posts were reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled

Caste category. Therefore, the respondent Commission decided that all the candidates of Scheduled Caste category, who appeared in the written

screening test be called for interview.

3. In view of the above said circumstances, written screening test was not the criteria to determine the merit. So far as merit is concerned, the

criteria for distribution of 100 marks for viva-voce has been equally applied to all the candidates. The criteria has been produced before this Court

in a sealed cover, which has been opened. The criteria is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

Total Marks of the Viva-voce: 100 Marks

1. Personal Achievements 40 marks

a) Academic Qualifications:

i) B.Tech. 10 marks

First Division: 10 marks

Second Division: 07 marks

ii) Master of Engineering Degree in Electrical/Electrical and Electronics 10 marks

First Division: 10 marks

Second Division: 05 marks

iii) Ph.D. Degree in the relevant subject: 05 marks

b) Experience: 10 marks

One mark per completed year of experience in the relevant field after

attaining the basic qualification upto the closing date subject to

maximum of 10 marks.

c) Co-curricular Activities: 05 marks

Participation in activities like NCC, NSS, Sports (Only National level),

Cultural/Literary/Scientific/Social activity.

Or

Published work of high standard in journals of National or International

repute. One mark will be given for each publication in National level

journal and two marks for each publication in International journal.

2. Interview: 60 marks

The interview will be conducted through oral discussion and questioning. The questions and discussion will be directed to ascertain the personal

qualities, knowledge, awareness, intelligence, presentation, expression, poise, bearing, articulation & speaking ability etc. 60 marks are assigned

for the interview with the following break up:-

i) Knowledge, awareness & general interest etc. 20 marks

ii) Intelligence, initiative, decision making, expression, 20 marks

presentation etc.

iii) Poise, bearing, behaviour, adaptability, articulation &20 marks

other qualities.

For the convenience of awarding marks and realistic assessment, a candidate is to be categorised as under by the Expert Advisor and marks to be

awarded by the Commission as shown against such gradation for each at (i), (ii) and (iii) above:-

Very Good 13-20 marks

Good 7-12 marks

Average 1-6 marks

A candidate must obtain at least 40% marks in the aggregate of 1 & 2 above to qualify the viva-voce.

4. There does not appear to be any illegality in the distribution of marks of viva-voce as mentioned hereinabove. Moreover, the said criteria has

also not been challenged by the petitioner. In order to determine the comparative merit of the petitioner, his score under personal achievement and

interview have been examined by me from the results, which have been produced before this Court. The marks obtained by petitioner and

respondent No. 3 & 4 under different heads are as follows:-

5. On the determination of the comparative merit of the petitioner, vis-�-vis respondents, I am of the considered opinion that no illegality or

irregularity can be pointed out in the process of preparation of merit. The criteria laid down by the Selection Committee has been followed. The

petitioner cannot claim higher merit on the basis of the written test, which was an objective type test and was merely meant for short-listing the

candidates for interview.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that excess marks have been given to the selected candidates in the interview.

7. The comparative chart of the marks above indicates that the respondents i.e. the selected candidates have not been able to be selected solely on

the basis of the interview marks. Since, the excessive marks have not been earmarked for interview, there is no ground to doubt the legality of the

selection criteria, which has been uniformly applied to all the candidates.

8. No ground is made out for interference in the selection process. Dismissed.

From The Blog
Pathumma v. State of Kerala
Oct
19
2025

Landmark Judgements

Pathumma v. State of Kerala
Read More
Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum (1985)
Oct
19
2025

Landmark Judgements

Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum (1985)
Read More