NARENDER PAL SHARMA AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 164 · Decided: 25-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
NARENDER PAL SHARMA AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 25, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDN. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW 
Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Class-I Rules, 1976-
Vacancies in Punjab Civil Services Executive Branch-Procedure for 
nomination-Candidates who have applied for being more than required 
number to be nominated-Procedure evolved by Chief Secretary 
recommending candidates-Marks awarded for ACRs and experience-
Ability test conducted-candidates secured 33% or less omitted-Criteria 
adopted is unjust and unfair, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution 
of India. 
As per the procedure under Punjab Civil Services (Executive 
Branch) (Class-I) Rules 1976, to fill up nine vacancies th the Punjab 
Civil Service Executive Branch, nominations had been called from 
various departments. The Rules did not w-ovide the procedure for 
nomination. Since there were more than the required number to be 
nominated, namely, while three persons out of the senior stenographers 
and two persons out of clerical cadre, more than 80 candidates had 
applied for. With a view to screen the candidates, the Chief Secretary 
evolved the procedure, namely, for the ACRs he awarded 70 marks. 
Equally, he had also distributed 10 marks experience - wise. In 
addition, ability test was also conducted. While determining the ability 
test candidates who secured more than 33% were recommended and 
the candidates who secured 33% and less were omitted to be considered 
for recommendation. The procedure was challenged. The High Court 
upheld the action taken by the Chief Secretary. This appeal by special 
leave had been filed against the judgment of the High Court. 
The appellants contended that the marks secured in the ability test 
alone were taken into consideration and candidates who did not secure 
33% and below were excluded; and that similar tests were not 
conducted in other departments and that, therefore, the procedure 
adopted by the Chief Secretary was arbitrary, illegal and unjust 
H 
denying the right to consideration of the claims of the appellant. 
164 
N. P. SHARMA v. STATE OF PB. 
165 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
A 
HELD : 1.1. Out of the five candidates recommended by the Chief 
Secretary, from the senior stenographer cadre three candidates were 
already interviewed by the Public Service Commission and were 
selected and were accordingly appointed. They had secured higher 
marks in the order of merit even including the actual marks got in the B 
ability .test The criteria of excluding these candidates who secured 33% 
and below is not valid in view of awarding separate marks for ACRs 
and experience. So the criteria adopted is unjust and unfair which 
violates Articles 14 and 16. So the criteria must be to include for 
consideration all those who secured marks on all heads and to 
recommend those who secured highest in aggregate and since three C 
senior stenographers got total highest marks, their recommendation 
was valid. Thus there was no illegality in recommending 5 candidates to 
be considered for three posts out of the quota of the senior 
stenographers cadre. (166 G, 167 A, BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8868 of D 
1994. 
. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18-4-94 of the Punjab .. and 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 10062of1993. 
Inderish Goel and Ashok K. Mahajan for the Appellants. 
· Uijagar Singh, Sanjay Bansal and Ms. Narish Bakshi for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab 
E 
F 
and Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 10062/93 dated April 18, 1994. The 
undisputed facts are that as per the procedure under Punjab Civil Services 
(Executive Branch) (Class-I) Rules, 1976 to fill up nine vacancies in the G 
Punjab Civil Service Executive Branch, nominations have been called from 
various departments. The Rules do not provide the procedure for 
nomination by the heads of departments, Chief Ministers, Ministers, Chief 
Justice of High Court etc. For the posts of Stenographer and the senior 
clerks working the Secretariat, the Chief Secretary is the head of the 
department. Since there are more than the required number to be H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
nominated, namely, while three persons out of the senior stenographers and 
two persons out of clerical cadre, more than 80 candidate

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.