Judgment

KULDIP SINGH, J.- The Government of Himachal Pradcsh issued office memorandum dated September 27/29, 1980 (the memorandum) wherein the procedure for recruitment to Class III and IV posts/services - not within the purview of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission - was laid down. The memorandum provided that fresh recruitment to the posts/services mentioned therein would be-made on the basis of an interview which would carry 50 marks as follows:

"(a) For elonging to a family of whom not even one 10 marks member is in organised employment.

(b) For belonging to a family whose annual income 10 marks does not exceed Rs 6000.

(c) Minimum educational qualifications. 10 marks

(d) General knowledge, experience and personality. 20 marks Total 50 marks The word family has been defined by the Government as parents, brothers and unmarried sisters of the candidate."

2. The State Government decided to hold special recruitment for Class III and Class IV posts in accordance with the procedure laid down in the memorandum. Candidates registered up to the specified dates with the various employment exchanges in the State of Himachal Pradesh were called for interview by the special selection committees constituted for the recruitment On the basis of the interviews held by the special selection committees, merit lists were prepared and the selected candidates were given appointments.

3. The selection and the consequent appointments were challenged by way of a batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated 6-8-1982 allowed the writ petitions and quashed part of the memorandum, the selection and the appointments. These appeals by way of special leave are against the judgment of the High Court.

4. The High Court referred to various judgments of this Court and held that it was permissible for the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward class of citizens. The High Court,however, did not agree with the definition of the expression "family" given in the memorandum and set aside the same on the following reasoning: "This definition does not include spouses. In other words, the income of a husband or a wife of a candidate who may be earning fabulously has not been taken into consideration. There also seems to be no justification for not excluding married brothers of a candidate. A married brother has his own obligations and so it does not stand to reason that his income should be taken into consideration for deciding the question of weightage for a candidate."

5. The High Court also struck down the 10 marks provided for a candidate "belonging to a family of whom not even one member is in organised employment". According to the High Court a candidate who belongs to a rich business family cannot be considered socially and educationally backward and as such is not entitled to any weightage even though not a single member of the said family is in organised employment.

6. The High Court, on the examination of the proceedings of the special selection committees, came to the conclusion that the interviews were held in an arbitrary manner and quashed the same on the following reasoning:

"The record relating to the selection of Class III employees reveals that as many as 423 candidates were interviewed. As usual, the record does not show the date of interview. If all these candidates were interviewed on the day, it shows that it was impossible to give more than one to two minutes to each candidate and the result would be that arbitrary marks must have been allotted with respect to general knowledge, experience and personality. There are cases also where in the interview high marks have been obtained by those who had obtained very low marks in the examination. For example, at p. 89 at St. No. 17 is one Miss Nirmala who obtained only 3.1 per cent marks for educational qualifications, she was