http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 6046-58 of 2003

PETITIONER:

State of Punjab & Ors.

RESPONDENT:

Satnam Kaur & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/12/2005

BENCH:

S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

S.B. SINHA, J :

The State of Punjab is in appeal before us being aggrieved by and

dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 10.01.2002 passed by a

Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court allowing the writ

petitions filed by the Respondents herein.

On or about 07.05.1997, the Civil Surgeon, Nawanshahr issued an

advertisement in ’New Zamana’, Jalandhar, inviting applications for the

following 31 posts :

(1) Ward Servant 15

(2) Sweeper 08

(3) Mali 02

(4) Cook 04

(5) Aaya 01

(6) Dental Attendant 01

A large number of candidates being more than 9000 applied for

appointments in the said posts pursuant to or in furtherance of the said

advertisement. Interviews of about 1000 persons were conducted on

12/13.05.1997. Appointment letters to the so-called candidates were

despatched on 05.06.1997 and they were allowed to join on 06.06.1997.

A writ petition was filed by some unsuccessful candidates, which was

marked as Civil Writ Petition No.11116 of 1997, wherein 18 of the selected

candidates were made parties. The entire selection process as well as the

selection of the said respondents were questioned, inter alia, on the ground

that their names were recommended by one or the other influential persons

or they had otherwise access to the Civil Surgeon concerned. In the said

writ petition, it was, inter alia, prayed :

"i) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for

quashing the selection of Class IV employee in the civil

hospital Nawanshahr vide selection list Annexure P/3 and

further to order quashing the appointment of respondent

No.4 to 21 against the post (in class IV) and to issue writ

of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 3 to

appoint the petitioner as Class IV employees in the civil

hospital, Nawanshahr."

A Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment and order dated

10.11.2000 perused the records pertaining to the process of selection and the

results thereof and was of the opinion that although no criteria whatsoever

was fixed for evaluating the marks which were to be given to each individual

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 5

candidate but despite the same 5 marks had been awarded for the purported

qualification and experience to each candidate while 20 marks had been

fixed for interview. It was noticed :

"\005It may also be mentioned here that according to the

notification which was issued on 7th May, 1997, it was

indicated that (i) the candidate should be able to read

write, Punjabi and (ii) the experience shall be given

preference. In view of this it is apparent that the

committee which was conducting the interview was

given no guidelines which were to be followed by them

by evaluating the worth of any candidate it had an

absolute and arbitrary discretion regarding how they were

to access and award marks during the time of interview

Further more it is also evident that out of a total of 30

marks that were to be awarded, 20 marks have been

earmarked for the interview which shows that more than

66% marks were to be given by the member of the board

without any parameter having been fixed awarding

thereof. No material has been placed before us to show

that how 20 marks were to be awarded by the five

members of the Board nor it is clear that how the marks

have actually been awarded\005"

The High Court further noticed the manner in which discriminatory

treatment had been m