Reservation of 50% vacancies for ex-servicemen in the selection process for Sub-Inspectors was valid and did not violate Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution.

, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 1948 of 1972, 3109 of 1972, 2588 of 1972, 2116 of 1972, 1952 of 1972, 2247 of 1972, 2399 of 1972, 2346 of 1972, 2175 of 1972, 2173 of 1972, 2172 of 1972, 2111 of 1972, 2112 of 1972, 2113 of 1972 and 2110 of 1972. For facility of reference, the facts giving rise to Civil Writ No. 1948 of 1972, may briefly be stated as follows.

2. Originally, this petition was filed on behalf of five petitioners. On an objection being raised that a joint petition was not competent, it was treated as a petition on behalf on the petitioner No. 1, only. This petitioner, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, joined the Food and Supplies Department. Haryana State, in the year 1967 as Sub-Inspector, Food and Supplies, and was promoted as Inspector on 22nd May, 1971. It appears that the appointment of the petitioner was on ad hoc basis. In the year 1970, the Sub-ordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana State, invited applications on the prescribed forms from the candidates to be appointed as Sub-Inspectors. Second Class Matriculates were made eligible. Preference was to be given to those candidates who had previous experience with the Food and Supplies Department or the Food Corporation of India, gained after acquiring the basic qualifications. The petitioner applied for one of these posts. The original advertisement mentioned that 22 per cent vacancies were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes and 30 per cent vacancies were reserved for ex-Servicemen. In other words, 52 per cent vacancies stood reserved and only 48 per cent vacancies were thrown open to other candidates. A competitive examination was held on 24th October, 1971, in which the petitioner qualified and he was called for interview by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, respondent No. 2 on 2nd May, 1972. It is alleged that the Selection Committee consisted of respondent No. 3 as Chairman, and respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 as ordinary Members. As many as 400 candidates were present for the interview which was held more as an empty formality. The candidates entered through one door and were made to get out from the other. No question whatsoever was put to them. It is also alleged that the selections tentatively made at the time of the interview were subsequently reshuffled because of the recommendations which started pouring in. Some of the candidates who had not even qualified the written test were also called for interview and actually selected. In this petition, this selection is challenged as being arbitrary as also on the ground that more than 50 per cent vacancies had been reserved and only 48 per cent vacancies had been thrown open to other candidates.

3. The return on behalf of the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, has been filed by Shri Munshi Ram, its Chairman. It has been asserted that only those candidates who has passed the written test were called for interview. Each candidate who was called for interview was put question to judge his fitness for the post. Since the academic qualifications was only Matric Second Division Many question were not put to the candidates. Only 253 candidates were interviewed on the said date between 7.00 A.M. to 3.00 P.M. The Board had laid down specific criteria for allotting marks to the candidates and that criteria had been rigidly adhered to. There was no question of reshuffling of the result of the interview later on. The Board recommended a total number of 276 candidates out of which 33 were already working on ad hoc basis as Sub-Inspectors, Food and Supplies. It has also been stated that the reservation for Ex-Servicemen was reduced from 30 per cent to 28 per cent and in this manner, only 50 per cent vacancies were reserved.

4. A reference to the pleadings would show that the allegations made in the petition regarding arbitrary manner of selection have been denied by the chairman of the Board. It has also been denied that the result of t