LexMOHINDER SAIN GARG ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MOHINDER SAIN GARG ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. NOVEMBER 15, 1990 B [N.M. KASLIWAL AND M. FATHIMA BEEYI, JJ.] Civil Service: c D Excise and Taxation Inspectors-Appointment of-Examina- tion-Viva voce-Value and importance of-Fixing 25% of total marks-Whether arbitrary and excessive-Calling for a large number of candidates-Whether vitiates selection-Quashing of selection- Desirabi/ity of. For filling up 47 posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors in Punjab, the Chairman, Selection Committee issued an advertisement in newspaper. The advertisement stated that there would be three written papers in English, Punjabi and General i-.nowledge of Degree Stan- dard and would carry 100 marks each. Those who obtain 33% in each paper and 40% in the aggregate were to be called for interview which would carry 100 marks. The examination was held and the Selection Committee called more than 1200 candidates for interview. By the time the Selectio E commenced the vacancies increased to 54, comprising of 28 posts ot Taxation Inspectors and 26 posts of Excise Inspectors. After the interview and selection, all the 54 posts were filled, taking into account the reservations made for Scheduled Caste, Backward class, Ex- servicemen, dependents of freedom fighters etc. The appellants who were unsuccessful in the interview filed a Writ Petition in the High F Court challenging the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions following two Judgments of its Full Bench, viz., Joginaer Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1966 Punjab & Haryana 339 and Vikram Singh & Ors. v. The Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana & Ors., AIR 1988 Punjab & Haryana 299. The appellants have preferred the appeals by special G leave, against the Judgment of the High Court. The Writ Petitioners have approached this Court direct challenging the selection made. The appellants and the petitioners contended that since the Selec- tion Committee had called 1200 candidates for interview for only 54 posts, it gave the power of arbitrariness for selection of the candidates. H It was impossible lo carry out a satisfactory viva voce list if such a large 108 - .. • ' ) M.S. GARG v. STATE OF PUNJAB 109 number of candidates were .called for interview. The interview was not only casual but also superficial and sloppy and the assessment made at such interviews can never reflect the true measure of the personality of the candidates. It was also contended that keeping 100 marks for interview, that is 25 per cent of the total marks, gave arbitrary powers to the Selection Committee, and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. On behalf of the respondents it.was contended that the. Writ Peti- tions and appeals were not maintainable since all the respond~nts in the High Court were not impleaded; that since the selected candidates have already joined the posts such appointments may not be quashed. It was further contended that the observations made in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case have no relevance to the present cases since the selection was made by Departmental Selection Committee and not by Public Service Com- mission; that all the candidates who had qualified in the written exami- nation had to be called for interview irrespective of the number; that marks were awarded by the members of selection Committee who were experts, solely on the basis of the response of candidates and that no ex~_,.sive marks were awarded to any candidate. Dismissing the Writ Petitions and one appeal and allowing the other appeals, this Court, HELD: 1.1. Ashok Kumar Yadav'8 case was decided in 1985 and there is no reason why the State of Punjab did not follow the same for making selections in 1989 for the posts of Excise and Taxation Ins- pectors. It is no doubt correct that the selection of Taxation and Excise Inspectors Is done by a Subordinate Selection body and not by Public Service Commission yet no valid reason has been given as to why that princij>lQ should not be applied in these cases as well. Even if the said principle may not in terms apply in these cases to the extent of laying down 12.5% of the total marks for viva voce test which was made applicable for selections to be made by V.P.S.C., the percentage of viva voce test in the present cases at 25% of the total marks is arbitrary and excessive. There could be no gain saying that viva voce test cannot be b1tally disp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.