Judgment

N.M.KASLIWAL, J.

(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) THE above two writ petitions and four civil appeals are disposed of by one single order as identical questions of law are involved in these cases. In order to appreciate the controversy in these cases we shall refer to the paper book of Civilarising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14292 of 1989. All the appellants as well as the two petitioners in the writ petitions would be referred herein as the petitioners.

(3) AN advertisement was published in the Tribune (English) on 3/08/1988 by the office of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab Chairman Selection Committee, Patiala for appointment to 47 posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors. In the advertisement it was provided that there will be three written papers of English, Punjabi and General Knowledge of B.A. standard. Those who get 33 per cent marks in each paper and 40 per cent marks in aggregate will be called for interview. Total marks for the written test were kept at 300 and for interview 100. Written examination was held in January 1989 in which all the petitioners appeared and were also called for interview but they did not qualify in merit for appointment. It may be further mentioned that by the time the selection process had commenced, the number of posts were increased to 54. Out of the above petitioners, Charanjit Singh falls in the category of backward class. Out of the above 54 posts, 28 posts were for Taxation Inspectors and 26 for Excise Inspectors. After the interview out of 28 posts of Taxation Inspectors, 15 were filled by candidates of general category, 7 by scheduled castes, 1 backward class, 4 ex-servicemen and I sportsman. Out of 26 posts of Excise Inspectors, 14 were filled out of general category, 6 scheduled castes, 1 backward class, 3 ex-servicemen, I sportsman and 1 dependant of freedom fighter. The Selection Committee called more than 1200 candidates for interview for appointments to the above posts.

(4) ON a direction given by this court the respondents produced the original result sheets of Excise/Taxation Inspectors Examination, 1989 according to which the petitioners secured the following marks: Written Viva voce

TI EI

Mohinder Sain Garg 182.5 32 36

Total: 214.5 218.5

Balwinder Singh 176.5 36 39

Total: 212.5 215.5

Chiranji Lal Sharma 170.5 37 —

Total: 207.5

Rajesh Kumar Saili 140 26 —

Total: 166

Davinder Pritpal Singh 129 68 —

Total: 197

Charanjit Singh 143.5 32 —

Total: 175.5

f

(5) THOUGH the petitioners had made allegations of mala fide against the Selection Committee but this ground was not substantiated and the petitioners did not press the ground of mala fide before us. The four petitioners who have come before this court by grant of special leave had filed writ petitions in the Punjab and Haryana High court but the same were dismissed following full bench judgments of that court in Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana and Vikram Singh v. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana.

(6) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners raised two grounds before us. The first ground of attack was that though the Selection Committee had to select 54 candidates but it called more than 1200 candidates for interview. This action of the Selection Committee gave the power of arbitrariness for selection of the candidates. It was contended that it would be impossible to carry out a satisfactory viva voce test if such a large number of candidates were called for interview. The interview was not only casual but also superficial and sloppy and the assessment made at such interviews can never reflect the true measure of the personality of the candidate. Reliance in support of the above contention was placed on Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana.

(7) THE second ground urged before us was that keeping 25 per cent marks for interview gave arbitrary powers to the Selection Committee. The selection of the candidates on the basis