HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned writ petitions shall be disposed of by this common order as they arise from a similar factual matrix and pose identical questions of law. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-751-2023.

2. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order/announcement dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure P-24) passed by respondent No. 2-Haryana Public Service Commission, whereby fresh criteria/minimum qualification was fixed for interview thereby changing ‘Rules of the Game’ in the middle of the selection process. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Result dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure P-25) to the extent whereby the petitioners have not been selected. It is further prayed that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners by passing a speaking order. Lastly, it is prayed that during the pendency of the present writ petition one post of Assistant Professor (Orthopaedics) and Assistant Professor (Anesthesiology) each, under BCA category, be kept reserved.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Respondent No.3-Director General Medical Education and Research, Haryana (DGMER) issued an advertisement dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) for 189 vacant posts of Teaching Faculty (Assistant Professor) in Super Speciality and Broad Speciality on regular basis in Government Medical Colleges in the State. Petitioner No.1 applied against one post of Broad Specialty (Medical)-Orthopaedics in BCA category while petitioner no.2 applied against one post of Broad Speciality (Medical)-Anesthesiology under BCA category as well. According to the selection criteria laid down in the advertisement (supra), 75 marks were to be awarded against pre-merit criteria while 25 marks were to be awarded on the basis of interview. Petitioner No.1 obtained 44 marks against the pre-merit criteria while petitioner no.2 obtained 40 marks, and both were called for interview vide orders dated 07.12.2022 and 08.12.2022 (Annexure P-23 and P-23A, respectively).

4. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure P-24), minimum marks- 50% marks for General Category and 45% marks for all the reserved categories, were prescribed for qualification of the interview. The petitioners appeared for the interview and it was found that no other candidate had reached this stage for the respective posts against which they had applied. The result was declared on 23.12.2022 (Annexure P-25) and the petitioners were not selected. Consequently, the petitioners submitted representations on 24.12.2022 and 30.12.2022 (Annexure P-26 and P-27, respectively) but no reply has been received till date.

CONTENTIONS

5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners inter alia contended that no minimum marks have been prescribed to qualify the interview stage either in the advertisement or in the announcements (Annexure P-23 and P-23A) vide which the petitioners were called for interview. The respondent-HPSC has abruptly issued the impugned announcement dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure P-24) prescribing a minimum criteria for qualifying interview as 50% for General category and 45% for all reserved categories. As such, prima facie, the respondent-HPSC has changed the rules of the game after the selection process had already started, which is expressly forbidden by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Manjushree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC 512, Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi 2008 (2) SCT 736 and Sivanandan C.T. and others vs. High Court of Kerala and others 2023 INSC 709. He further argues that only 90 candidates were called for interview against 189 posts of Teaching Faculty and, under the BCA category, only one applicant qualified to this stage against the posts of Assistant Professor (Orthopaedics) a