VJJAY SYAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 242 · Decided: 22-05-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
VJJA Y SYAL AND ANR. 
v. 
ST ATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
MAY 22, 2003 
(SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Service Law: Appointments-Selection to the posts of Asst/ .District 
Transport Officer-Written test--Certain candidates declared successful-
C Lowering of the standard declaring some more candidates successful-Selection 
of candidates from both lists after interviewing them-Non-selection of 
appellants from the first list--Challenge to--Dismissed by the High Court-
Held: Even after non-consideration of Selection of the Candidates from second 
list appellants would not succeed--Marks allocated for interview reasonably 
fair and just and conform with the directions of the Supreme Court in this 
D regard-It does not give scope for misuse of discretion by the members of 
Interview Committee in favour of undeserving candidates--Marks secured by 
the candidates in the written test and interview were not grossly 
disproportionate-Hence no arbitrariness in the selection of the Candidates-
Thus selection not vitiated 
E 
Words and Phrases: 
'arbitrariness in Selection '-Meaning of in the context of service 
jurisprudence. 
Punjab. Subordinate Selection Board conducted a written test for 
F selection of the candidates to the posts of Assistant District Transport 
Officer and declared certain number of candidates successful. Later some 
more candidates were declared successful by lowering the standard. 
Interview was conducted and successful candidates were appointed. 
Respondents, the unsuccessful candidates, filed writ petitions challenging 
G the selections. The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court. Hence 
the present appeals. 
H 
It was contended for the appellants that after declaration of the 
result of the written examination the standard could not have been lowered 
for making some undeserving candidates eligible for interview/selection; 
242 
....... 
VI.TAY SYAL v. STATE 
243 
that the criteria for selection could not have been framed after declaration A 
of result of the written examination; that the maximum marks fixed for 
interview was exctssive and that lot of persons were called for interview 
as against the ratio of l :3. 
On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that appellants made 
deliberate misrepresentation regarding allocation of excessive marks for B 
interview; and that they attributed ma/afides to the authorities based on 
their relationship with the candidates and also political influences. Though 
the respondents gave up the contentions before the High Court, they 
reiterated the same in the appeal before this Court. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court Held: 
c 
I.I. Certain statements were made in SLPs to get leave and/or 
interim orders on the ground that excessive marks were allocated for 
interview and also alltging ma/a fides in selection. The conduct of the 
appellants is condemnable and hence they have disentitled themselves for D 
any relief on this score. (249-H, 250-AI 
Hari Narain v. Badri Das; [1964) 2 SCR 203; Rajabhai Abdul Rehman 
Munshi v. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, (19641 3 SCR 480 and Udai Chand v. 
Shanker Lal and Ors. (1978) 2 SCR 809, relied on. 
1.2. No doubt, the candidates in general category were called for 
interview from the second list. However, the marks secured by these 
respondents were more than any of the appellants in the general category. 
E 
But the two candidates in general category called in the first list of the 
interview have also secured more marks than all the appellants ,but not 
successful. Even if the candidates were to be denied appointment on the F 
ground that they were called for interview from the second list, the position 
of the appellants could not improve. One more fact to be kept1in mind is 
that two candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes category ha~ing secured 
higher marks than the appellants could be selected in the general category. 
Thus, even otherwise, the appellants would not succeed in getting selected G 
for appointments. Merely because some more candidates were called for 
interview without anything more, selection of the candidates does not get 
vitiated particularly so when malafides were given up and excessive marks 
were not allocated for the interview as wrongly stated by the appellants. 
It does not appear abnormal or per se does not smell of any foul play or 
does not appear patently arbitrary. (251-D-G) 
H 
244 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.CR. 
A 
1.3. The marks secured in the interv

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