Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(P&H) 517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARUN MONGA, J.
RAGHVIR SINGH & ORS - Appelant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - Respondent
CWP-22985-2016 in CWP-1641, 1642, 1649, 1702, 1728, 1881, 1924, 2013, 2285, 1640 -2017 CWP-22974, 23425, 23474, 23493, 23497, 23551, 23662, 23726, 23816-2016
Decided On : 05-07-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R. K. Chopra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate and
Mr. Manmeet Singh Rana, Mr. Randeep Singh Rana, Mr. Pardeep Singh Mirpur, Mr. Naveen Daryal, Mr. K. G. Chaudhary, Mr. Ripudaman Singh Sidhu, Mr. Gourave Bhayyia Gilhotra, Mr. Jasvir Singh Dhaliwal, Ms. Kamalpreet Kaur Dhaliwal, Dr. Rau P. S. Girwar, Mr. Rajesh Narang, Mr. Rishav Jain, Mr. Rajeev K. Kapila, Ms. Satpreet Grewal Kapila, Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Mr. Sohan Singh Rana, Mr. Sumit Puri, Mr. Jaspreet Singh Brar, Mr. Vinod K. Kaushal, Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Mr. Manish Dadwal, Mr. M. S. Atwal, Mr. Amandeep Singh Gulati, Mr. B. B. S. Randhawa, Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Mr. Sushil Saini, Mr. L. M. Gulati and Ms. Jasneet Mehra, Mr. B. S. Aulakh, Mr. Ramandeep Singh, Mr. Naresh Kumar Manchanda, Mr. Amandeep Singh Cheema,
Mr. Preetwinder Singh Dhaliwal, Mr. Bhupinderbir Singh Randhawa, Mr. Naresh Kumar Ganga, Mr. Bir Davinder Singh, Mr. Ajay Paul Singh, Mr. Liaqat Ali, Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar,Ms. Payel Mehta, Mr. Amrik Singh, Mr. M. N. Jajoria, Mr. Harish Goyal, Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, Mr. Manpreet Singh Longia, Mr. Amandeep Chhabra, Mr. Rajeev Dev Sharma, Mr. Munish Kumar Singla, Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur (Simmi), Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Mr. Vaneet Kumar Sharma, Mr. Harvinder Singh Maan, Mr. Harchand Singh Batth, Mr. Baljinder Singh Ichhewal, Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Mr. Sandeep Singh Majithia, Mr. B. S. Makar, Mr. H. S. Saggu, Mr. Lakhwinder Singh, Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, Mr. Jagjit Singh, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Mr. H. K. Barinda, Mr. Daman Jeet Bhoriwal, Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Mr. Rajinder Mathur, Mr. J. N. Gupta, Mr. H. S. Jugait, Mr. Vakeel Singh Khosa, Dr. D. P. S. Randhawa, Mr. Amitoj Singh Dhaliwal, Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Derabassi, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Ms. Anju Arora, Mr. Jagdish Singh Mahal, Mr. Arun Kaundal, Mr. Deepak Girotra, Mr. Vikas Gupta, Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Ms. Banni Chibber Mahajan, Mr. Baljinder Singh Khaira, Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Mr. Arun Takhi, Mr. R. S. Manhas, Mr. Yogesh Arora, Mr. Rishu Garg, Mr. Vivek Salathia, Mr. Ivneet Singh Pabla, Mr. JPS Sidhu, Mr. Gagan Oberoi, Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Mr. Ashok Kumar Sama, Mr. Aminder Singh, Mr. Amrik Singh Kalra, Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bakolia, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

A candidate who participates in a selection process wherein the eligibility criteria as well as the criteria for selection are disclosed beforehand cannot, upon being unsuccessful, turn around and contend that the eligibility criteria were arbitrary and wrongly framed.

Headnote:
Recruitment of police constables - Challenge to selection criteria - Non-conducting of interview - Whether maintainable - Whether any material prejudice caused to petitioners - Whether candidates who secured lesser marks than petitioners in 10+2 examination and those shorter in height have been selected - Whether formula for award of marks on metrics of educational qualifications tenable - Whether formula for determination of merit in event of two or more candidates securing equal marks tenable.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, unsuccessful candidates for the selection/recruitment of police constables in Punjab Police, challenged the selection/recruitment process on various grounds, including the non-conducting of an interview, the formula for award of marks on the metrics of educational qualifications and height measurement, and the formula for determination of merit in the event of two or more candidates securing equal marks.
Finding of the Court:

1. The challenge to the non-conducting of the interview was held to be not maintainable, and in any case, no material prejudice was caused to the petitioners by the non-conducting of the interview-cum-personality test. 2. The petitioners' contention that candidates who secured lesser marks than the petitioners in the 10+2 examination and those shorter in height had been selected was rejected as the petitioners failed to show that any other candidate having less than the petitioners' combined total marks for educational qualifications and height measurement had been selected. 3. The formulae for award of marks on the metrics of educational qualifications, height measurement, and determination of merit in the event of two or more candidates securing equal marks were upheld as being fair and reasonable, and the petitioners were precluded from challenging the same having participated in the selection process with knowledge of these formulae.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners' challenge to the non-conducting of the interview was maintainable? 2. Whether any material prejudice was caused to the petitioners by the non-conducting of the interview-cum-personality test? 3. Whether candidates who secured lesser marks than the petitioners in the 10+2 examination and those shorter in height had been selected? 4. Whether the petitioners' challenge to the formula for award of marks on the metrics of educational qualifications was tenable? 5. Whether the petitioners' challenge to the formula for determination of merit in the event of two or more candidates securing equal marks was tenable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The decision to dispense with the interview-cum-personality test was taken as a policy measure to bring more transparency and eliminate chances of subjective and erroneous assessment in awarding marks for the interview. Further, it had the obvious merit of eliminating any possibility of the selection being influenced for extraneous considerations through unethical, unscrupulous, and unfair means. 2. The petitioners failed to show that any other candidate having less than the petitioners' combined total marks for educational qualifications and height measurement had been selected. 3. The formulae for award of marks on the metrics of educational qualifications, height measurement, and determination of merit in the event of two or more candidates securing equal marks were advertised/disclosed beforehand and were applied/followed for the selection. The petitioners, having remained unsuccessful in selection, could not challenge the criteria/formula for selection on the ground that they were unfair, unreasonable, and irrational.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and the respondents were directed to remain bound by their own undertakings given to the court in the course of hearing/s and/or in their affidavits.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN MONGA, J.

1. This common judgment pertains to a bunch of above numbered Writ Petitions (Civil) as the material questions for adjudication are the same or within the same ambit. CWP-22985 of 2016 “Raghvir Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others”, for convenience, is being treated as lead matter in this bunch. All facts/pleadings/record and recitals are referred from the file of the lead matter.

2. Grievance of the petitioners, unsuccessful candidates, is qua the selection/ recruitment of police constables in Punjab Police. The respondents did not allegedly adhere to the terms and conditions specified in the relevant advertisement; thus acted illegally and unfairly and wrongly selected candidates lower in merit by rejecting the ones higher in merit.

3. During the preliminary hearing of the case, after issuance of notice, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, then seized of the matter passed following order dated 06.12.2016 :-

“Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents/ State and prays for time to file reply. Service is complete. Adjourned to 22.03.2017. In the meanwhile, the selection and appointment of the Constables against advertised posts vide Advt. No. 01/2016, dated 31.05.2016, shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition.”

Entire selection is thus subject to final outcome of the instant writ petition.

4. Facts, in brief, as pleaded in the lead matter are as below :-

4.1. Respondent No. 2-Director General of Police, Punjab issued an advertisement on 31.05.2016 for recruitment of 7,416 constables (male/female) in District Police cadre and Armed Police cadre, specifying the eligibility requirements and the procedure and process for selection. The petitioners fulfilled the eligibility requirements and applied for the posts.

4.2. Per advertisement, from amongst the candidates who qualify the Physical Measurement and the Physical Screening Test, each Range/Zonal/Commissionerate Recruitment Board, was to draw up a preliminary list separately for the District Police cadre and Armed Police cadre on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the height measurement and the educational qualifications (30 marks). Thereafter, eligible candidates were to be called for interview-cum-personality test. Grievance is that without compliance of the requirement of interview-cum-personality test, the provisional merit list has been converted into final selection list, totally in violation of the advertised selection procedure.

4.3. Further, petitioners are aggrieved that the marking system prescribed in the advertisement is not upto the mark. The candidates who secured 50-60% in 10+2 examination have been put in same bracket/awarded same marks as those who secured 60-70% marks. This amounts to treating unequals as equal and is thus in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the system adopted by the respondents, a candidate who has secured 50.33 marks is equated with the candidates who have secured 60% marks and this is not sustainable in law. The percentage of marks obtained by the petitioners in 10+2 examination, details of their height and combined total marks awarded to them for both metrics by the respondents, are as under:

Petitioner

2021 Supreme(P&H) 517

A candidate who participates in a selection process wherein the eligibility criteria as well as the criteria for selection are disclosed beforehand cannot, upon being unsuccessful, turn around and contend that the eligibility criteria were arbitrary and wrongly framed.

Cases Referred (2)