LexRAM AVTAR PATWARI AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANAAND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
;- RAM AVTAR PATW ARI AND ORS. A v. STATE OF HARYANAAND ORS. SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN,JJ.] .r-- Service Law: Appointmentlrecruitment/selection-1248 posts for appointment c as Patwari-Selection of2395 candidates-Writ Petition challenging selection on the ground that undue weightage given to performance in interview-Allowed by High Court-On appeal, held: Records of marks of interview and handwriting not considered by High Court- Matter needs reconsideration by High Court. D f- The Subordinate Services Board issued an advertisement dated 7.11.1992 calling for applications for filling up 1248 posts of Patwar candidates to be deputed to the Patwar Training School and on completion of training, for appointment as Patwaris. E Against the advertised posts, 2395 candidates were recommended by the Board for admission to Patwar Training school Writ Petitioners challenged the selection on the ground that the selection beyond the -~ advertised posts was bad in law; that the marks for performance in the interview were to be restricted to 15% whereas in the present case 25 F marks were allotted for the interview and 10 marks were given for the hand writing; that the criteria for selection was not only designed to give undue weightage to viva voce and to bye-pass the observations made in *Satpal Singh 's case, it was even otherwise unsustainable as the guidelines were framed on 19.5.1993, whereas the process of interview G had started on the very next day; that there was room for manipulation as the records pertaining to all candidates were with the Board well before 19.5.1993; that the then Chief Minister Ch. Bhajan Lal on 26.5.1994 in a meeting held in his Assembly Constituency of Adampur 469 H 470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R. A had clearly stated that promise of one post of Patwari to each family has been made possible which had influenced the selection which is clearly reflected from the fact that large number of candidates were selected from the Adampur and Kalka Assembly constituencies represented by Ch. Bhajan Lal and his son Sh. Chander Mohan. Prior B selection in consequence of advertisement dated 19.3~1987 out of which 377 candidates had cleared the course had been given appointment which was challenged in *Satpal Singh's case and the selection and appointment had been quashed. c The High Court held that fixing·25% marks for interview and . another 10 marks for handwriting on the face ofitwa8 unjustified; that selection was bad and there was no equity in favour of selected candidates; that there was mala fides involved in the selection, however, granted time to appear in fresh selection and 1248 Patwaris who were D presently in position were allowed to continue till the end of July, 2007. Hence the present appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD; 1~ For the process of interview, seven different Committees E were appointed which functioned between 20.5.1993 to February, 1994. About 1.10 lakhs candidates were interviewed who were short listed from amongst 1.25 lakhs candidates. The final result was declared and 2395 candidates were selected for appointment in terms of Haryana Revenue Patwaris (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1981. It is to be noted p that the decision in *Satpal Singh's case was rendered on 14:9.1993 whereas the criteria had only been framed on 19.5.1993. In **Anzar Ahmad's case it was held that 100% marks can be ear-marked for the interview, if there was no composite test. [Para 14] [475-E,F, G] Satpal Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (1995) 3 SLR 787; G *Satpal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., [1995] Supp 1SCC206 and **4jay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors. etc., AIR (1981) SC 487, referred to. 2. Emphasis laid by the High Court on the speech of Ch. Bhajan H Lal appears to be not wholly appropriate in view of what has been_ stated I , RAMAVTARPATWARlv. STATEOFHARYANA 471 by this Court in *Satpal Singh's case. [Para 18) [477-D] 3. The records of marks secured at the interview and in th~ handwriting by the selected candidates have not been considered by the High Court. Further, the distinguishing features noted by this Court' vis-a-vis those in *Satpal Singh's case were also not noticed. [Para23] [478-G] A B r 4. Since the High Court has not examined the materials in detail, it would be appropriate for the High Court to reconsider the matter. [Para 24) [478-H;
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.