Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Monga, J.
Harvinder Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No.6025 of 2014 (O&M) & CWP No.17751 of 2016 (O&M) & CWP No.10411 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 31-05-2022
Mr. Vijay K. Jindal, Advocate, Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate, Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. N.R. Dahiya, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 32 (in CWP-6025-2014) for respondents No.5 to 31 (in CWP-10411-2015, for the Respondent
Preference to sportspersons applies only when all other parameters are equal, excessive marks for viva-voce are justified as the entire selection was based on interview, and there is no violation of the reservation.
Headnote:
SPORTSPERSON - Appointment of Assistant Superintendent Jail - Punjab Jails Department State Service (Class III Executive) Rules, 1963 - Rule 7, Rule 8 - The court discussed the alleged violations in the selection process, including preference to sportspersons, method of conducting viva-voce, reservation, and destruction of records. The court held that the preference to sportspersons would apply only when all other parameters are equal, excessive marks for viva-voce were justified as the entire selection was based on interview, and there was no violation of the reservation. The court also found no mala fide in the destruction of records and dismissed the petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an ex-ace cricketer, challenged the appointment of respondents as Assistant Superintendent Jail, alleging violations in the selection process, including preference to sportspersons, method of conducting viva-voce, reservation, and destruction of records.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and dismissed the petitions, holding that the alleged violations did not warrant interference with the selection process.
Issues: Alleged violations in the selection process, including preference to sportspersons, method of conducting viva-voce, reservation, and destruction of records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that preference to sportspersons would apply only when all other parameters are equal, excessive marks for viva-voce were justified as the entire selection was based on interview, and there was no violation of the reservation. The court also found no mala fide in the destruction of records.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments.
JUDGMENT
Arun Monga, J. - Above titled bunch of 3 petitions is being disposed of vide common order since facts as well as issues involved therein are similar.
I) CWP-6025-2014 (O&M)
1. Petitioner, having unsuccessfully participated in the selection process, claiming himself to be a better achiever than the selected ones, asserting that he is an ex ace cricketer/sportsman, is before this court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing appointment of respondents No.5 to 33 on the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail.
2. Succinct factual narrative first.
2.1. Some of the cricketing achievements of the petitioner in sports are as below:-
Sr.No. | Date | Details of Achievement |
i) | 23.06.2007 | Panchkula District Cricket Association awarded him a certificate for participating in the Haryana State Inter District (under 15) Cricket Tournament conducted by Haryana Cricket Association (Affiliated to Board of Control for Cricket in India) during the year 2000-2001 (Annexure P- 3/1). |
ii) | 2007-2008 | Represented Panchkula District in Haryana State Inter District (under 22) Cricket Championship 2007-2008 conducted by Haryana Cricket Association, Bhiwani (Annexure P-3/2). |
iii) | 21.12.2007 to 23.12.2007 | Participated as a player in the first North India 15-15 Cricket Championship (Sr.Boys) from 21.12.2007 to 23.12.2007 held at Dronacharya Stadium Kurukshetra,Haryana. His team position attained 3rd place (Annexure P-3/3) |
2.2. Respondent No.3-Haryana Staff Selection Commission advertised 29 posts of Assistant Superintendent Jail. 12 posts were kept for General Category and 17 posts for Reserved Category.
2.3. After undergoing the requisite physical test in respect of height and chest etc., petitioner was found eligible and was interviewed on 22.09.2012 by Respondent No.4, one Member of the Commission. He was awarded 10 marks out of 25 in viva-voce, 23.06 marks out of 50 for educational qualification. Thus, petitioner scored just 33.06 marks out of 75, as against much higher marks of the selected candidates of General Category which are as under:-
Sr.No. | Roll No. | Total marks out of 75 marks |
i) | 0163 | 47.40 |
ii) | 0183 | 45.10 |
iii) | 0657 | 45.88 |
iv) | 1136 | 45.84 |
v) | 01749 | 46.76 |
vi) | 2861 | 47.08 |
vii) | 3085 | 45.92 |
viii) | 3106 | 47.06 |
ix) | 3767 (BCB) | 36.87 (Unselected Candidate) |
x) | 3815 | 46.08 |
xi) | 4003 | 44.11 |
xii) | 2861 | 47.08 |
It is thus borne out that unsuccessful petitioner having got 33.06 marks as against the last selected candidate who secured 44.11 marks has challenged the entire selection process through the instant writ proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would first and foremost argue that selection is contrary to service rules as applicable herein. Preference had to be given to the petitioner under sportsman quota. Furthermore, instead of qualifications mentioned for the post of Assistant Superintendent, the Commission had mentioned the qualifications meant for the post of Senior Assistant Superintendent in the impugned advertisement (Annexure P-5).
He also relied upon the official notings of the respondent department showing that officials themselves accepted that the advertisement issued by the HSSC for the posts was not in accordance with the Note-2 of Rule 7 of 1963 Rules.
4. Secondly, he would then argue that method of conducting viva- voce while awarding 25 marks was against the 1963 Rules as criteria has been laid down in the said Rules.
5. Thirdly, he urged that out of total29 posts,only 12 were kept for General Category and 17 were reserved for other Categories amounting to reservation of more than 50% which is against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Sahwney etc. vs. Union of India, 1993(1) SCT 448.
6. Fourthly, he was rather over emphatic that action of the respondents in destroying the original record of selection despite repeated orders of court to produce the same shows mala fide on their part.
7. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner would canvass that posts of Assistant Superintendent are still lying vacant and the petitioner deserves to be considered against a
