LexPREM SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
PREM SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. A v. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. ETC. ETC. MAY 7, 1996 [S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] B Service Law : Selection-Junior Engineers-Electricity Board advertised for 62 posts-Selection List of 212 candidates preparei}-Board deciding to appoint C 147 candidates-Whether violative of right to equality and equality of oppor- tunity-Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 14, 16. Adve1tisement stating that candidates with higher qualification to be given preference-Non selection of all candidates with higher qualification fim-Non specifying of marks awarded for higher qualification-Validity of D appoil1tn1ents. Held: Not indicating in advance the nianner in which 1narks are to be awarded for higher qualifications-Did not contravene the provisions of Ar- ticles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India. E Haryana Election Board decided to fill up 62 vacant posts of Junior Engineers by direct recruitment. An advertisement was published inviting applications from eligible candidates. The advertisement also stated that prefence would be given to candidates having higher qualifications. After screening the applications and interviewing the candidates, the selection F committee selected 212 candidates and recommended their names. The Board atler considering the latest vacancy position decided to fill up 147 posts. Some of the non selected candidates and one person who became eligible after the last date for receiving applications filed writ petitions in G the High Court contending that selecting 212 candidates and appointing 147 when the posts advertised were 62 was violative of Articles 14 and 16; that no real benefit was given to candidates possessing higher qualifica- tions evqi though it \Vas so specified in the advertisement and that alloca- tion of 50 marks for viva voce and the fact that each candidate was interviewed for a very short tin1e during which the worth was not properly H 401 402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A assessed vitiated the entire selection process. B The High Court found that each ca.1dida!e had been interviewed for 8 to 9 minutes and declared it to be ade11uate for assessment. The challenge on the ground of allocation of 50 marks for viva voce was also rejected relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Anzar Ahmed v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1994] 1 SCC 150. Tiie decision of the High Court on these points was not challenged. The High Court upheld the first contention and held that the decision to take into consideration 85 more posts which became available after the date of the advertisement was violative of the equality clause in Articles 14 and 16. It also upheld the contention that the C Board had decided to give preference to candidates possessing higher 11ualilication and nun-specifying the marks fixed for minimum c1ualilica- tion and higher qualification resulted in denying the benefit of the higher c1ualilication to persons. The High Court rejected the contention that preference to higher qualification meant that at the first instance persons D with higher qualification should be considered and only if they are found unsuitable could other candidates be considered. The High Court quashed the selection and appointments made by the Board. The present appeals have been filed by the selected candidates and the Haryana Electricity Board. E The appellants contended that the High Court wrongly held that the F G Board had either overlooked or deviated from the condition that preference would be given tu those candidates who possessed higher qualifications, that the selection committee had beforehand decided the norm as regard~ the manner in which preference \vaS to be given for higher qualifications, that selection of candidates in excess of the number of posts advertised does not per se offend the equality guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, that in view of delay which was likely to take place in the selection and appointn1ents it \\-'';\S permissible for the Board to take into account anticipated vacancies and make provisions for the same, and that if the Board had not filled up those posts then its work would have suffered adversely. The respondents contended that in view of the representation made in the advertisement what was required to be done by the Board was to consider fir.st those candidates \\'ho had higher qualifications and the H candidate
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.