Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 68
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL AND SHEKHER DHAWAN, JJ.
Dr. Deepak Bhatia – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
LPA-559, 977, 1405-2015 [O&M]
Decided On :15.01.2016
Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate, for the appellant. (in LPA No.559 of 2015).
Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate for Mr. Kunal Mulwani and Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocates, for the appellant. (in LPA No.977 of 2015).
Mr.H.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the appellant. (in LPA No.1405 of 2015).
Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab.
Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with, Mr. R.P.S.Bara and Ms. Daman Preet Kaur, Advocates, for respondents No.6, 15, 24 and 40.
Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.P.S.Bhinder, Advocate, for respondents No.20 and 21.
Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for respondents No.43 to 52. (in LPA No.559 of 2015).
Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddhant Kant, Advocates, for respondents No.43 to 46.
Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for respondents No.53 to 55.
Mr. A.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.56 to 61.
Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate, for applicant (in CM No.3559 in LPA 559 of 2015).
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of examination rules and the requirement for candidates to obtain minimum 33% marks in each paper, as well as the absence of confusion in the minds of the candidates regarding this requirement.
Headnote:
Minimum Marks - Interpretation of Examination Rules - Punjab Civil Services [Executive Branch] and Allied Services - Procedure and Scheme for the Main Examination - [Punjab Civil Services [Executive Branch] and Allied Services Act, 2014, Section 3(1)(a), Section 4(2)(b)] - The court discussed the interpretation of the examination rules and the controversy surrounding whether candidates were required to obtain minimum 33% marks in each paper or each subject. The court held that candidates were required to obtain 33% marks in each paper and there was no confusion in the minds of the candidates. The court also found that there was no change in the rules and procedure midway that adversely affected the rights of the candidates. The court further concluded that the order passed by the Single Judge adversely affected the rights of the parties and allowed the appeals, setting aside the Single Judge's order.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents challenged the selection process initiated by Punjab Public Service Commission for appointment to 120 vacancies of Punjab Civil Services [Executive Branch] and Allied Services by prescribing minimum 33% marks for each paper. The main controversy was whether 33% marks were required to be obtained by a candidate in each paper or each subject. The Single Judge accepted all the writ petitions and directed the Commission to redraw the result by applying 33% minimum marks cumulatively in all the four papers of the General Studies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that candidates were required to obtain 33% marks in each paper and there was no confusion in the minds of the candidates. The court also concluded that there was no change in the rules and procedure midway that adversely affected the rights of the candidates. The court further found that the order passed by the Single Judge adversely affected the rights of the parties and allowed the appeals, setting aside the Single Judge's order.
Issues: The main issues involved whether candidates were required to obtain minimum 33% marks in each paper or each subject, whether there was any confusion in the minds of the candidates, whether any rules or procedure of recruitment were changed midway adversely affecting the rights of either party, and whether the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge adversely affected the rights of present appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that candidates were required to obtain 33% marks in each paper and there was no confusion in the minds of the candidates. The court also found that there was no change in the rules and procedure midway that adversely affected the rights of the candidates. The court further concluded that the order passed by the Single Judge adversely affected the rights of the parties and allowed the appeals, setting aside the Single Judge's order.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and set aside the order dated 8.1.2015 passed by the Single Judge in the writ petitions.
SHEKHER DHAWAN,J.
The above titled three intracourt appeals, bearing LPA Nos. 599, 977 and 1405 of 2015 under Clause X of the Letters Patent have been filed by the appellant against the common order dated 8.1.2015 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby five writ petitions [bearing CWP Nos. 25960, 26310, 26370, 26780 of 2014 and CWP No. 17 of 2015] were allowed.
2. Relevant facts of the case are that respondents challenged the selection process initiated by Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala [for short, “the Commission”] for appointment to 120 vacancies of Punjab Civil Services [Executive Branch] and Allied Services by prescribing minimum 33% marks for each paper. As per the petitioners, the same was against the mandate of circular dated 3.1.2014 [Annexure P/3] prescribing procedure and pattern. Advertisement No. 9 dated 6th December, 2013 [Annexure P/1] was issued by the Commission. The procedure and scheme for conduct of Preliminary and Mains examination was notified by the Commission on 3.1.2014 itself. The syllabus and procedure for conducting the competitive exam is as under:
Sr.No.
Subject/Paper
Maximum Marks
1.
Punjabi (in Gurmukhi Script) Compulsory (of 10+2 standard)
100
2.
English Compulsory (of 10+2 standard)
100
3.
Essay
150
4.
General Studies Paper-I (History, Geography and Society)
250
5.
General Studies Paper-II (Indian Constitution & Polity, Governance and International Relations)
250
6.
General Studies Paper-III (Economy, Statistics and Security Issues)
250
7.
General Studies Paper-IV (Science & Technology, Environment, Problem Solving & Decision Making)
250
8.
Interview
150
Grant Total :
1500
3. Pursuant to the advertisement, 24,000 candidates appeared for the Preliminary examination held on 23.03.2014. Out of them, 1414 candidates cleared the preliminary examination which included private respondents herein. Thereafter the main examination [written] was held and 213 candidates were called for interview. The respondents challenged the process of appointment by invoking the writ jurisdiction.
4. The respondents had come with the plea that in the previous examinations held by the Commission, candidates were to appear in six subjects which included two optional subjects and two further papers in each optional subject. In those examinations, the candidates were required to obtain 45 per cent marks in aggregate and not less than 33 per cent marks in Punjabi only. The requirement of said minimum 33% marks was not for all subjects/papers. However, in the present selection, the scheme of the main examination was materially changed. Optional subjects were dropped. In all, there were seven papers, namely, Punjabi (one paper) for 100 marks, English (Compulsory) (One paper) for 100 marks, Essay (one paper) for 150 marks and General Studies divided into 4 papers each carrying 250 marks. That way, total seven papers were to be attempted in the Main examination. 150 marks were meant for the interview/vivavoce. As per conditions and procedure, a candidate was to be eligible for appearing for interview only if he obtains 45% marks in aggregate in all the subjects for the General category candidates and 40% marks in aggregate in all subjects for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The main controversy in these appeals is whether 33% were required to be obtained by a candidate in each paper or each subject?
5. Learned Single Judge while accepting all the writ petitions observed that interpretation placed by the Commission while declaring the result of Main examination, taking 33% minimum marks in each paper was held to be impermissible and ultra vires the syllabus and the procedure published in the notification dated 3.1.2014. However, the Commission was directed to redr
