पंजाब एवं हरियाणा हाई कोर्ट ने मंगलवार को महत्वपूर्ण फैसले में 1983 पीटीआइ की नियुक्ति को अवैध करार देते हुए रद कर दिया। नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया में कर्मचारी चयन आयोग की भूमिका पर भी सवाल उठे हैं। साथ ही आयोग को पांच माह के भीतर नियमों के तहत नए सिरे से भर्ती प्रक्रिया शुरू करने का आदेश भी दिया। हाई कोर्ट के जस्टिस एजी मसीह ने एक साथ 68 याचिकाओं पर चार माह पूर्व रिजर्व रखे गए फैसले को सुनाते हुए यह आदेश जारी किया। राज्य कर्मचारी चयन आयोग ने 10 अप्रैल 2010 को फाइनल लिस्ट जारी करते हुए ये नियुक्तियां की थीं। कोर्ट ने कहा कि नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया के दौरान साक्षात्कार होल्ड करवाने वाले आयोग की सेलेक्शन कमेटी के सदस्यों द्वारा कार्यवाही में शामिल न होना नकारात्मक छवि को उजागर करता है। दस्तावेज खुलासा करते हैं कि नियुक्तियां निर्धारित नियमों के तहत नहीं हुई और इन्हें गैरकानूनी कहना गलत नहीं है। खंडपीठ ने कमीशन की कार्यप्रणाली पर सवाल उठाते यहां तक कहा कि बहुसदस्यीय कमीशन होने के बाद भी कार्यप्रणाली से ऐसा लगता है कि यह सब एक व्यक्ति के कहने से चल रहा है। कोर्ट ने कमीशन के चेयरमैन व सदस्यों पर भी तल्ख टिप्पणी की
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 11.9.2012.
CWP No. 15656 of 2010
Sanjeev Kumar and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 11695 of 2010
Kailash Chander and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 2613 of 2011
Tej Singh and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 7067 of 2010
Krishan Kumar and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 8154 of 2010
Dharampal and another
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -2-
CWP No. 8659 of 2010
Mehar Singh
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 8728 of 2010
Vijay Singh
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 8785 of 2010
Surender Singh
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 8810 of 2010
Om Kumar
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 9143 of 2010
Roshan Lal
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 9239 of 2010
Mohan Singh
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -3-
CWP No. 9815 of 2010
Arun Kaushik
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 9820 of 2010
Arun Kaushik
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 9994 of 2010
Harvinder Singh and otheres
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 10069 of 2010
Ram Niwas and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 10106 of 2010
Rajvir Singh and another
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -4-
CWP No. 10174 of 2010
Mahender Singh and another
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 10476 of 2010
Rajesh
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 10552 of 2010
Mahender Singh
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 11473 of 2010
Bhumi Singh
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 11678 of 2010
Sukhraj Singh
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 13561 of 2010
Anju
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -5-
CWP No. 14534 of 2010
Dilbag Singh and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 17241 of 2010
Anita and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 17823 of 2010
Suresh Kumar and another
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 18050 of 2010
Karambir
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 18263 of 2010
Nisha Chaudhary and another
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 18288 of 2010
Ramkala and another
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -6-
CWP No. 19053 of 2010
Naresh and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 19058 of 2010
Avtar Singh Gulia
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 20071 of 2010
Sunita
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 20204 of 2010
Kiran Pal and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 20485 of 2010
Dilawar Singh and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -7-
CWP No. 20711 of 2010
Manju Lata
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 21864 of 2010
Raj Kumar
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 21910 of 2010
Inderjeet and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 21917 of 2010
Om Parkash
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 22232 of 2010
Jai Bhagwan and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -8-
CWP No. 22937 of 2010
Kavita
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 23432 of 2010
Mohit Kaushik and another
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 458 of 2011
Narinder Singh
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 1360 of 2011
Vidyawati and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 2068 of 2011
Ashok Kumar
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -9-
CWP No. 5322 of 2011
Smt. Sunita
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 5678 of 2011
Aman Kumar
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 6308 of 2011
Satyavir Singh
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 7153 of 2011
Jagjit Singh
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 8507 of 2011
Krishan and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -10-
CWP No. 8520 of 2011
Satya Bala
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 9381 of 2011
Raj Kumar and another
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 10261 of 2011
Rajnish Kumar
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 10283 of 2011
Rajeev Kumar and another
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 10484 of 2011
Devender Singh
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -11-
CWP No. 12221 of 2011
Subhash Chand and another
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 13293 of 2011
Narender Singh and another
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 14342 of 2011
Suresh Kumar and another
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 15592 of 2011
Rakesh Kumar
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 15944 of 2011
Urmila and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -12-
CWP No.16979 of 2011
Zile Singh
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 19312 of 2011
Vinod Kumar
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 19998 of 2011
Meena Kumari
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 21085 of 2011
Sudesh Devi and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 23688 of 2011
Savita Yadav and others
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -13-
CWP No. 1295 of 2012
Subhash Devi
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 8086 of 2012
Sunita
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 8087 of 2012
Jagphool and another
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 8108 of 2012
Tejwinder Singh and another
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 8335 of 2012
Sube Singh and another
…… Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….. Respondent(s)
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -14-
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate
Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate,
Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate,
Mr. S.S. Khurana, Advocate,
Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate,
Mr. A.K. Bura, Advocate,
Mr. Rajesh Sheoran, Advocate,
Mr. Satish Garg, Advocate,
Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate,
Mr. R.S. Tacoria, Advocate,
Mr. R.K. Agnihotri, Advocate,
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate,
Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate,
Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate,
Mr. Ashwani Verma, Advocate,
Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate,
Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocate,
Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate,
Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate,
Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate,
Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate,
Mr. Ravi Gupta, Advocate,
Mr. S.S. Duhan, Advocate,
Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate,
Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate,
Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate,
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate,
Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate,
Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate,
Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate,
Mr. Harender Singh, Advocate,
Mr. Sumeet Sheokhan, Advocate,
for the petitioners
Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG Haryana.
Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with,
Ms. Renu, Advocate,
Mr. Inderpal Singh Parmar, Advocate,
Mr. Anshuman Dalal, Advocate,
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate,
Mr. C.P. Tiwana, Advocate,
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -15-
Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate,
Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate,
Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate,
Mr. Ashok K. Sharma (Bhana), Advocate,
Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate,
Mr. Ajit Attri, Advocate,
Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Chander Shekhar, Advocate,
Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate,
Mr. S.S. Kharb, Advocate,
Mr. Manvender Rathi, Advocate,
Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate,
Mr. Jarnail Singh Saneta, Advocate,
Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate,
Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate,
Mr. S.N. Yadav, Advocate,
Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate,
Mr. Kartar Singh Malik-I, Advocate,
Mr. Kamal Mor, Advocate,
Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate,
Mr. Vijay Dhaiya, Advocate,
Mr. R.S. Malik, Advocate,
Mr. Dilbag Singh, Advocate,
Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate,
for the private respondents.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
By this order, I propose to dispose of the Civil Writ Petitions No.
15656 of 2010, 11695 of 2010, 2613 of 2011, 7067 of 2010, 8154 of 2010,
8659 of 2010, 8728 of 2010, 8785 of 2010, 8810 of 2010, 9143 of 2010, 9239
of 2010, 9815 of 2010, 9820 of 2010, 9994 of 2010, 10069 of 2010, 10106 of
2010, 10174 of 2010, 10476 of 2010, 10552 of 2010, 11473 of 2010, 11678 of
2010, 13561 of 2010, 14534 of 2010, 17241 of 2010, 17823 of 2010, 18050 of
2010, 18263 of 2010, 18288 of 2010, 19053 of 2010, 19058 of 2010, 20071 of
2010, 20204 of 2010, 20485 of 2010, 20711 of 2010, 21864 of 2010, 21910 of
2010, 21917 of 2010, 22232 of 2010, 22937 of 2010, 23432 of 2010, 458 of
2011, 1360 of 2011, 2068 of 2011, 5322 of 2011, 5678 of 2011, 6308 of 2011,
7153 of 2011, 8507 of 2011, 8520 of 2011, 9381 of 2011, 10261 of 2011,
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -16-
10283 of 2011, 10484 of 2011, 12221 of 2011, 13293 of 2011, 14342 of 2011,
15592 of 2011, 15944 of 2011, 16979 of 2011, 19312 of 2011, 19998 of 2011,
21085 of 2011, 23688 of 2011, 1295 of 2012, 8086 of 2012, 8087 of 2012,
8108 of 2012 and 8335 of 2012 wherein challenge is to the selection and
appointment of Physical Training Instructors (in short ‘PTIs’) in pursuance to
an advertisement dated 20.7.2006 for filling up 1983 posts belonging to
various categories with a prayer to quash the selection list dated 10.4.2010.
Briefly the facts are that advertisement No. 6/2006 was published
on 20.7.2006 by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (in short
‘Commission’) for filling up various posts, category No. 23 whereof dealt
with 1983 posts of PTIs. Break-up of the posts of different categories was as
follows :
“General=940, SC-A=200, SC-B=200, BC-A=318, BCB=
216, ESM(Gen)=72 ESM (SC-A)=2, ESM(SC-B)=2,
ESM(BC-A)=7, ESM(BC-B)=7, Outstanding
Sportsperson (Gen)=10, Outstanding Sportsperson (SCB)-
2, Outstanding Sportsperson (BC-A)=3, Outstanding
Sportsperson (BC-B)=2”
Educational qualifications prescribed for the post were :-
E.Q.:- i) Matric from Haryana School Education
Board or an equivalent qualification recognized by the
Haryana School Education Board.
ii) Certificate in Physical Education conducted
by the Haryana Education Department or
an equivalent qualification recognized by
the Haryana Education Department.
iii) Knowledge of Hindi up to Matric standard.
iv) For Ex-servicemen :-
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -17-
(i) Middle Pass.
(ii)Training in physical education from a
military School.”
The last date for submission of application form was 21.8.2006.
Under the heading ‘Special Instructions’ it was stated as follows :-
“Special Instructions:
The prescribed essential qualification does not
entitle a candidate to be called for interview. The
Commission may short list the candidates for interview
by holding a written examination or on the basis of a
rationale criteria to be adopted by the Commission. The
decision of the Commission in all matters relating to
acceptance or rejection of an application,
eligibility/suitability of the candidates, mode of, and
criteria for selection etc. will be final and binding on the
candidates. No inquiry or correspondence will be
entertained in this regard.”
In pursuance to the advertisement, petitioners being eligible
applied for the post within time. Notice dated 28.12.2006 was published in
various newspapers to the candidates by the Commission that the written
examination shall be held for the post of PTIs on 21.1.2007. It was stated
therein that this examination was to have 100 objective type multiple choice
questions and each question was to carry two marks. Minimum qualifying
marks in the written test were also prescribed for different categories which
reads as follows :-
“(a) General Category 50%
(b) SC/BC 45%
(c) ESM 40%
(d) DESM and outstanding As per general, SC,
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -18-
sportspersons BC candidates, as
the case may be.”
25 Marks were assigned for the viva-voce.
It was further mentioned in the notice that candidates equal to
three times the number of vacancies will be called for interview based upon
their performance in the written test. The total marks obtained in the written
test and viva-voce will determine the merit of the candidates in their
respective categories. The written test was held on 21.1.2007, as per the
schedule.
A public notice dated 1.2.2007 was issued by the Commission,
which was published in newspapers also, wherein it was stated that the
Commission, has received several complaints/reports with regard to
malpractice and cheating committed in the written examination held on
21.1.2007 at various examination centres, which prompted the Commission to
cancel the aforesaid written examination.
Notice dated 11.6.2008 was published by the Commission fixing
the date of written examination as 20.7.2008 for the post of PTIs. The criteria
for minimum qualifying marks in the written test and 25 marks for viva-voce
alongwith other conditions as were earlier published on 28.12.2006 were
maintained as such. This written test, which was scheduled for 20.7.2008,
was cancelled by the Commission, vide public notice dated 30.6.2008 for
administrative reasons.
Another public notice dated 12.7.2008 was published in various
newspapers by the Commission according to which, Commission decided to
shortlist eight times the candidates of the advertised posts in their respective
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -19-
category for interview on the basis of essential academic advertised
qualifications prescribed for the post of PTI. The minimum weightage score
in each category was also mentioned therein, which reads as follows :-
“Sr. No. Category % age Sr. No. Category %age
1. General = 66% 7. ESM-BCA = 46%
2. SC = 34% 8. ESM-BCB = 50%
3. BC-A = 33% 9. OSP-GEN = 66%
4. BC-B = 33% 10. OSP-SC = 53%
5. ESM-GEN = 50% 11. OSP-BCA = 66%
6. ESM-SC = 50% 12. OSP-BCB = 66%”
All shortlisted candidates were to be interviewed during the
months of September and October, 2008. On 18.7.2008, interview schedule
for the candidates was published by the Commission according to which,
interviews to the post of PTIs were to be held between 2.9.2008 to 17.10.2008
at various places as specified therein.
On 31.7.2008, another notice to the candidates for interview to
the post of PTIs was published according to which, on careful re-consideration
of the matter, the Commission decided to call all eligible candidates, i.e. who
fulfilled the minimum essential qualifications advertised, for interview to the
post of PTI as per the schedule published during the months of September and
October, 2008 abandoning the earlier decision of the Commission which was
published on 12.7.2008 fixing minimum weightage score for each category
and shortlisting eight times the candidates of the advertised posts.
The result ultimately was declared after a gap of one year and six
months on 10.4.2010, published on 11.4.2010, which has been impugned by
the petitioners in the present writ petition. The criteria adopted by the
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -20-
Commission for making selection was also made public alongwith the result,
which reads as follows :-
“Criteria adopted for selection :-
The criteria adopted by the Commission for making
selection is given below :-
1) Academic marks 60 marks
2) Marks obtained in the viva-voce out of 30 marks
Total : 90 marks.”
The basic ground taken for challenging the selection is that once
the criteria has been laid down by the Commission and has been published on
28.12.2006, the same was required to be followed strictly while making the
selection and it was not proper to change the same. As per the earlier criteria
published, marks for viva-voce were only 25 which have been in the ultimate
selection taken as 30 marks which according to the petitioners is in violation
of the law declared in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Rakhi Ray and others Versus The High Court of Delhi and others, 2010 (1)
SCT 720. It has been contended that once selection process starts, it is not
permissible for the Commission to change the selection criteria midway.
Initially, Commission had published the criteria according to which earlier
there were only 25 marks for the viva-voce. Thereafter, nothing has been
published or brought to the notice of the candidates that the criteria for
selection has been changed nor has it been brought to the notice of the
candidates that the viva-voce marks would be 30 instead of 25 as published
earlier. Petitioners assert that this whole exercise has been done with a
malafide intention to help some of the favourties who have been awarded very
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -21-
high marks in the interview so that they can be selected and the viva-voce
marks have been increased from 25 to 30 marks with this intention only.
In CWP No. 15656 of 2010 titled as Sanjeev Kumar and others
Versus State of Haryana and others, petitioners on the basis of the information
supplied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short ‘RTI’), have found
14 candidates in the select list who have been awarded more than 25 marks in
the viva-voce though they had very less marks in the educational
qualifications. Had they been granted 25 or less marks in the interview, they
could not have been selected. The details of such candidates have been
mentioned in paras 19 to 32 of the writ petition. As regards, respondent No.
143 Ms. Sonia Pawar having roll number 006062, it has been mentioned that
she has failed in the certificate course in Physical Education Examination
1998-99 as she had obtained 85 marks out of 400 marks i.e. 21% (Annexure-
P-39).
Another ground which has been taken by the petitioners is that
most of the respondents are not eligible for appointment to the posts of PTIs
as they do not possess the requisite qualification of CP.Ed./MP.Ed/BP.Ed.,
which is the eligibility prescribed as per the advertisement for the post of PTI.
Respondents No. 8 to 13 in CWP No. 2613 of 2011 titled as Taj
Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others, possess qualification of
MP.Ed. and have been selected. Information was sought by the petitioners
under the Right to Information Act (in short 'RTI Act') from the Kurukshetra
University, Kurukshetra as to whether MP.Ed. can be treated as equivalent to
CP.Ed. and B.Sc. (Sports) is equivalent to CP.Ed. ? It has been informed that
B.Sc. (Sports) and MP.Ed. is not equivalent to CP.Ed., DP.Ed. and BP.Ed.
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -22-
Since they do not possess the requisite qualification, their selection cannot
sustain. It has further been asserted that respondents No. 3 to 7 were overage
at the time of filing of the application forms as they were above 40 years of
age. The details of their date of birth and their age have been mentioned in
para-11 of the writ petition. As regards, respondents No. 63 to 258, it has
been asserted that these respondents have failed in their certificate/diploma of
physical education course in one or two papers and they have been declared
'failed' in these papers and therefore, they cannot be appointed to the said post
as they have not passed the examination. Similarly, it is asserted that these
respondents have obtained their BP.Ed. (3 years) course from Nagpur
University, Nagpur, Amrawati University and Barkatullah Vishwavidyalya,
Bhopal. None of these courses is equivalent to CP.Ed., thus petitioners assert
on the basis of information sought by them under the RTI Act and supplied by
the Kurukshetra University, Kuurukshetra, vide reply dated 18.1.2011, since
these respondents do not possess degrees and qualifications which are
equivalent to CP.Ed., they cannot be treated as eligible for appointment and
their selection deserve to be quashed.
In para-21 of the writ petition, it has been asserted by the
petitioners that respondents No. 92 and 93 have been selected under the
category of dependents of ex-servicemen, but their selection cannot sustain as
they both are married at the time of submission of their application forms and
their selection is violative of the policy dated 11.10.2001, framed by the
Secretary, Rajya Sainik Board, Haryana .
In CWP No. 11695 of 2010 titled as Kailash Chander and others
Versus State of Haryana and another, it has been asserted that the selection of
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -23-
the private respondents cannot be sustained as the percentage on reservation
exceeds beyond 50% which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney and others Versus Union of
India, AIR 1994 SC 477 and is contrary to the Haryana Government
Instructions dated 7.6.2007 as out of the total 1983 posts, only 940 are kept
for the general category and the remaining 1043 posts are for the reserved
categories. Challenge is also posed to the clause in the advertisement with
regard to reservation of 50% to Rural Youths having done matriculation from
a school situated in rural areas of Haryana, which has been quashed by a
Division Bench of this Court in Mahender Kumar and others Versus State of
Haryana and others, 2008(2) SCT 536. On this basis, it is asserted that the
selection made by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission being contrary to
law, cannot sustain and deserves to be quashed.
Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the Commission
wherein the action of the respondents has been justified. As regards the
selection of the candidates who possess MP.Ed. and their eligibility, reliance
has been placed upon the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Charan
Singh Versus State of Haryana, 2004 (3) RSJ 611, wherein it has been held
that DP.Ed./BP.Ed./MP.Ed. are in the line of the qualification of CP.Ed.
Therefore, a candidate who has obtained any of the aforesaid qualifications,
will be deemed to have studied the subject which form part of the course of
CP.Ed. and therefore, they are eligible for appointment to the post of PTI. In
the light of this judgment, the Commission has made selection of the
candidates of aforesaid qualifications of BP.Ed./DP.Ed./MP.Ed.
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -24-
Objection has been raised by the respondents to the
maintainability of the present writ petition, placing reliance upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari and
others Versus Shakuntala Shukla, 2002 (3) RSJ 507 and the judgment of this
Court in the case of Devki Nandan Sharma Versus State of Haryana and
others, 2002(1) RSJ 64, according to which, if a candidate appears in the
interview and participates therein, then only because the result of the
interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently
contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in
the process. Having participated and having taken a chance by participating
in the selection and having failed, no valid cause of action subsists to the
petitioners for challenging the selection criteria.
Placing reliance upon the decision of the Government of Haryana
dated 2.11.1999 , it has been contended that all examination bodies which
have been recognized by the Association of Indian Universities and University
Grants Commission (in short ‘UGC’), New Delhi, stand recognized by the
State of Haryana. The Teachers' Training Courses recognized by the National
Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi, have also been held to be
recognized in the State of Haryana. Since the selected candidates possess
qualification from the Universities which are duly recognized by the UGC, the
degrees/diplomas possessed by the selected candidates from these universities
are duly recognized by the State of Haryana.
As regards the eligibility of the selected candidates, who are
asserted to have failed, it has been stated by the Commission that while
recommending the names to the Education Department, it has been made clear
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -25-
that the antecedents and documents be got checked thoroughly before
allowing them to join duty. The education department was to look into the
eligibility conditions of the selected respondents and thereafter appoint them.
Private respondents in their reply have placed reliance upon
Ordinance 7-A of the Nagpur University to contend that one percent of the
aggregate grace marks prescribed for an examination can be granted to
candidate for declaring him pass according to which when the marks are
assigned to the respondents, who are deficient by five or less marks in a
subject, they become eligible and therefore, declared pass in the examination.
Thus, it is contended that the assertion of the petitioners that respondents have
failed and cannot be treated as passed in their examination, is without any
basis.
Some of the private respondents who have filed their replies apart
from taking the same stand as the Commission, have asserted that the
selection criteria, is fair and reasonable, as 60 marks have been fixed for
academic qualifications and only 30 marks have been fixed for the interview
which distribution of marks on this basis has been upheld by this Court.
Reliance has also been placed upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in
the case of Manjit Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, 2010 (4) RSJ 86 to
assert that candidates who are possessing diploma in B.P.Ed. or in D.P.Ed., a
higher qualification in the same line, cannot be considered ineligible for
appointment.
Controverting the assertions of the petitioners that the
qualification of DP.Ed., MP.Ed. and B.Sc. (Sports) is not recognized as
asserted by the petitioners, it has been contended that the information which
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -26-
has been sought by the petitioners of the writ petition was whether it was
equivalent to CP.Ed. and it is in this response that Kurukshetra University has
responded by saying that it is not so and information supplied is correct as
DP.Ed., MP.Ed., and B.Sc. (Sports) is a higher qualification than CP.Ed. and
therefore, cannot be equated with the said post. The degrees and diplomas
held by the selected candidates have been issued by the recognized
universities by the Government of India and the UGC and therefore, the
qualification possessed by the petitioners is duly recognized by the State of
Haryana as per the decision of the Government of Haryana.
As regards the overage candidates, it has been asserted that a
decision has been taken by the Government of Haryana and Instructions dated
12.2.1982 were issued, according to which if an applicant gets registered his
name with the employment exchange within the age prescribed as per the
Rules and gets overage before getting regular employment, in that case the
applicant would be considered within age upto the time he is regularly
appointed. Thus, age relaxation has to be given accordingly.
It has been asserted further that the selection criteria is the
discretion of the Commission in the absence of the statutory
Rules/Instructions laying down the same. Depending upon the facts and
circumstances of the case, Commission is competent to lay down its own
criteria and to amend, modify and regulate the criteria and move forward to
make the selection finally on that basis. The Selection Committee after the
criteria is framed, has to apply the same uniformly to all the candidates which
has been done in the present case. It has been asserted that earlier 25 marks
which were assigned for the viva-voce was based upon the fact that a decision
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -27-
had been taken by the Commission to hold a written test to be followed by a
viva-voce and the merit was to be determined on the basis of the written test
and the viva-voce. After the cancellation of the written test, a decision was
taken by the Commission not to hold the same. It was decided to grant marks
for the academic qualifications and the viva-voce. New criteria was thus
evolved and laid down by the Commission according to which, sixty marks
were assigned to the academic qualifications and thirty marks for viva-voce
which totaled up to 90 marks. This criteria has been followed by the
respondents uniformly qua all the candidates and on this score, there is no
discrimination on the part of the respondents.
As regards the assertion of the petitioners that the reservation has
exceeded 50%, it has been asserted that it has been made on lateral/horizontal
basis.
I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance have
gone through the records of the case.
During the course of hearing, counsel for the petitioners had
alleged malafides and also raised questions on the working of the
Commission, this Court had called for the records of the Commission. The
produced records had been retained by this Court when the judgment was
reserved.
The basic contention which has been raised by the petitioners and
their counsel is that once a criteria has been published by the Commission, the
same could not have been changed during the selection process after the
commencement of the same. There can be no dispute and it is by now well
settled that Commission/Selection Committee in the absence of statutory
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -28-
rules/instructions is entitled to lay down the criteria for selection. But once
the said criteria has been laid down and the selection process had been
initiated, selection criteria cannot be changed in the midst of the selection
process or after the selection process has come to an end.
There can be no dispute that in the advertisement published,
special instructions were inserted according to which, merely because a
candidate possesses the essential qualification, would not entitle him/her to be
called for interview. Commission may resort to shortlisting of the candidates
for interview by holding a written examination or on the basis of rationale
criteria to be adopted by it. Admittedly the statutory Rules are silent on this
aspect. On this basis and as settled by judicial precedents, there can be no
doubt that the Commission was entitled to and empowered to lay down the
selection criteria.
In exercise of this power, Commission decided to shortlist the
candidates by holding a written examination to be held on 21.12.2007, as per
the notice date 28.12.2006 published in the newspapers. In this very notice,
the process of shortlisting and selection was also laid down, according to
which, there were to be 100 objective type multiple choice questions with
each question carrying two marks, meaning thereby that the total marks
assigned for the written examination were 200. It was also mentioned that
these 100 questions would contain 60 questions relating to academic
knowledge including skill and method of teaching ability for which a
candidate is appearing in the written examination and 40 questions relating to
general knowledge, general English and Hindi upto matric standard. Different
minimum qualifying marks in the written examination were fixed for the
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -29-
different categories. 25 marks were fixed for the viva-voce. Candidates equal
to three times the number of vacancies were to be called for interview based
upon their performance in the written examination. The total marks obtained
in the written examination and viva-voce was to determine the merit of the
candidates in their respective categories.
As per the decision of the Commission, written test was held on
21.1.2007 on schedule, but vide public notice dated 1.2.2007 published in
various newspapers, it was informed that the Commission had received
several complaints/reports with regard to malpractice and cheating committed
in the written examination held on 21.1.2007 at various examination centres at
Kaithal and Jind and therefore, the Commission has decided to cancel the
written examination. The next date of examination was to be notified later on.
Fresh date was fixed by the Commission for holding the written examination
on 20.7.208 and notice to this effect was published on 11.6.2008 and in this
notice also, the criteria which was earlier laid down, was reiterated and there
was no change made in the same. As a matter of fact, except for the change of
dates, rest of the examination notice was verbatim the same. This written
examination was cancelled by the Commission for administrative reasons and
a notice to this effect was published on 30.6.2008.
After that, a decision was taken by the Commission for
shortlisting the candidates for interview on the basis of essential academic
advertised qualification prescribed for the post. The minimum weightage
score for each category was published therein on 11.7.2008. In this notice, it
was also mentioned that the Commission has decided to shortlist the
candidates eight times of the advertised posts in the respective categories and
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -30-
all shortlisted candidates with the minimum weightage score or higher score
were to be interviewed during the months of September and October, 2008 at
various places, such as Panchkula, Rewari, Yamuna Nagar, Karnal and
Gurgaon. On 18.7.2008, the interview schedule was published. Thereafter, a
decision was taken by the Commission on 31.7.2008 and a notice to this effect
was also issued and published in the newspapers, according to which, the
Commission had re-considered the matter and had decided to call all eligible
candidates who fulfilled the minimum essential qualification advertised to
appear in the interview for the posts of PTIs during the months of September
and October, 2008 as per earlier published schedule and dates. Interviews
were held as per the dates decided by the Commission.
It would not be out of way to mention here that after the
publication of the criteria qua selection, firstly on 28.12.2006 and thereafter
its reiteration on 11.6.2008 when the written examination was rescheduled to
be held on 20.7.2008 but was cancelled till the process of interview was
completed and the result was declared, no change in the criteria or fresh
criteria was ever published/notified by the Commission nor any intimation to
this effect given/sent to the candidates in any manner. The result was declared
on 10.4.2010, after a gap of one year and six months, wherein the criteria
adopted for selection for the first time was notified showing that the viva-voce
marks increased from 25 to 30 marks. In the case of Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation Versus Rajendera Bhimrao Mandve, 2001 (10) SCC 51,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the criteria for selection cannot be
altered with by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process
of selection has commenced. Relying on this ratio, the Hon’ble Supreme
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -31-
Court in K. Manjusree Versus State of A.P. and another, 2008 (3) SLR 269 has
held that introduction of new revelation of minimum marks for interview
which has the effect of marring and eliminating the career of candidates who
would otherwise be eligible and suitable for selection after the entire selection
process has concluded is impermissible. In Hemani Malhotra Versus High
Court of Delhi, 2008 (4) SLR 699, it was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that before the commencement of the selection process, the selection
authority concerned can lay down the criteria but cannot change or add
additional qualification either during the selection process or after the
selection process was over. This principle was reiterated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rakhi Ray’s case (supra), relying upon the
earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
In the present case, while applying the above principle, as has
been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the first thing which need to
be determined is as to when the selection process starts. For that various steps
in the process of appointment to a post needs to be referred to and determined.
Generally, the first step would be the decision of the appointing authority on
identification of the post(s) to be filled up. Thereafter, number of posts to be
filled up and from which source/category. The requisition is thereafter
sent to the selection authority for filling up of the posts as per the
statutory rules/instructions of the Government. Thereafter, the selection
authority comes into picture and takes over. An advertisement/notice inviting
applications from eligible candidates for filling up of the posts is published,
giving details therein of the minimum and requisite qualifications and the
mode of selection. It is at this stage also, the selecting authority can publish
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -32-
the criteria which it intends to follow for making selections or it may reserve
that right to itself for a later stage by mentioning the same in the advertisement
itself (as in the present case). After receipt of application, decision has to be
taken by the selection authority how to proceed with the selection and it is at
this stage, it has to decide whether the process of shortlisting of the candidates
is to be resorted to or not, depending upon the applications received by it.
Thereafter, the mode of shortlisting of the candidates is decided, if so required
and for doing so, it is required to be published or displayed or intimation sent
for the information of the candidates. It is at this stage that the selection
process starts. Here again, the power is still with the selection authority to
adopt a criteria for selection after the process of shortlisting is over for
proceeding to select the candidates amongst the shortlisted candidates
provided the criteria had not been earlier published. However, if at this stage,
a criteria is laid down for making the selection, the same has to be published.
The criteria once published cannot be changed, unless justifiable reasons for
changing the same is forthcoming, but that too before the process of selection
has not been initiated by taking positive steps in that direction as per the
earlier laid down criteria.
In this case, Commission, vide its notice dated 28.12.2006, while
fixing the date for written examination as 21.1.2007, published the criteria to
make selection, according to which, written examination which carried 200
marks, was to be held wherein minimum qualifying marks were prescribed for
different categories. Whoever attained the minimum qualifying marks in the
written examination had to further come within the candidates equal to three
times the number of vacancies for being called for interview. 25 marks were
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -33-
assigned for the viva-voce. The total marks obtained in the written
examination and viva-voce would determine the merit of the candidates in
their respective categories. The written examination was indeed held on
21.1.2007 as per the schedule, however, the same was cancelled as
Commission received several complaints/reports with regard to malpractice
and cheating committed in the written examination at various examination
centres, such as Kaithal and Jind. Fresh notice for written examination was
issued on 11.6.2008 where again the criteria earlier laid down was retained
and republished. This written examination which was scheduled for
20.7.2008 before it could be held, was cancelled by the Commission, vide
public notice dated 30.6.2008 for administrative reasons. Thereafter, public
notice dated 12.7.2008 was issued, where the criteria has been changed for
shortlisting and the minimum weightage score in each category mentioned in
the said notice was resorted to and it was decided that eight times the number
of candidates of the advertised posts in their respective categories be called
for interview. No criteria was published therein for the selection. Thereafter,
another public notice was issued on 31.7.2008, wherein it was decided that all
eligible candidates be called for interview. Here again, no criteria for
selection was laid down or published. The result ultimately was declared and
it is at this stage, the criteria adopted by the Commission for selection was
published, according to which, 60 marks were assigned for academic
qualification and 30 marks for viva-voce, totaling 90 marks. No reason
whatsoever has been given by the Commission in the written statement which
has been filed in Court as to why the mode of shortlisting and the criteria for
selection which was earlier decided and published changed. In the light of the
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -34-
judgments, referred to above, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, once the
selection process had started, the criteria could not be changed during the
selection.
In the present case, not only with the issuance of notice dated
28.12.2006, selection process had been initiated but the criteria laid down
therein had also been acted upon when the written examination was held on
21.1.2007. There are justifiable reasons for cancelling the same as well as the
subsequent date which was fixed for the written examination, but there are no
reasons forthcoming which would justify the change of the selection process
by cancelling the written examination and resorting to the shortlisting on the
basis of essential academic advertised qualifications prescribed for the post by
giving minimum weightage score in each category. As a matter of fact, the
records which have been produced, do not indicate that a decision was taken
by the Commission to change the process of selection. No reason has been
mentioned therein as to why the procedure for shortlisting was changed during
the selection process or procedure. Earlier a decision was taken on 11.7.2008
to shortlist the candidates on the basis of the minimum academic
qualifications prescribed for each category, but thereafter all eligible
candidates were called for interview and the reason assigned for taking such a
decision is that the candidates, who could not be shortlisted, resorted to
agitation in the house of the Chief Minister, Haryana, which weighed in the
mind of the Chairman of the Commission to call all the eligible candidates for
interview, which again is not justified. As a matter of fact, from the decision
to advertise the posts till the declaration of result and making
recommendations to the appointing authority of the selected candidates, not a
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -35-
single decision has been taken by the Commission. All decisions are taken by
the Chairman of the Commission alone.
An objection has been raised by the Commission and the private
respondents that the petitioners having participated in the selection and having
failed and the result being not palatable to them are estopped from challenging
the process of selection resorted to by the Commission on the ground that it
was unfair or there was some thing lacking in the process, cannot be accepted
for the reason that the petitioners had participated in the selection process,
believing that the interview marks would be 25 and not 30. Petitioners have
alleged that this criteria has been changed with a malafide intention to
accommodate and select candidates of their choice and high marks have been
given to those candidates for selecting them in the interview and had the
interview marks not been increased, some of the respondents, whose details
have been mentioned in paras 19 to 32 of the writ petition in CWP No. 15656
of 2010, could not have been selected if they were granted 25 or less than 25
marks in the interview. Therefore, on the principle, as has been laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the light of change in criteria of selection once
the process has started, cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside.
Another stunning revelation which has come to light on perusal
of the records produced in Court and retained is that, although apart from the
Chairman, there are eight Members of the Commission, but at no stage, has
Commission assembled or met to take any decision in or during the process of
selection. In all the notings and the records which have been produced, all the
decisions pertaining to the selection process have been taken by the Chairman
of the Commission alone. Initially, the decision has been taken by the
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -36-
Chairman of the Commission on 28.12.2006 for holding the written
examination on 21.1.2007. The draft notice for the written examination was
approved by him, which was published. It is in this notice that the criteria was
laid down for the selection, as has been referred to above in the earlier part of
the judgment. This criteria was required to be laid down by the Commission.
Decision for cancellation of the written examination held, which was
published on 1.2.2007, is not available on the records nor is there any mention
thereof in the notings. Thereafter, a decision was taken by the Chairman of
the Commission on 10.6.2008, fixing the written examination to be held on
20.7.2008 alongwith the notice to be published where again the earlier criteria
laid down was reiterated. This decision was published on 11.6.2008. The
communication was sent to the concerned officials for maintaining law and
order at the examination centres on 27.6.2008 and on 30.6.2008 again, the
Chairman of the Commission ordered that the written examination be
cancelled on administrative reasons and to withhold the roll numbers for the
written examination. These decisions again all through were that of the
Chairman alone without intimation to or involvement of any other Member of
the Commission. Thereafter, a decision was taken on 11.7.2008, again by the
Chairman of the Commission, for shortlisting the candidates for the interview.
In pursuance to this decision, notice was published in the newspapers. There
was some mistake in the notice published and therefore, a fresh notice to be
published in the newspapers was approved by the Chairman of the
Commission on 18.7.2008. Here again, the minimum weightage score
for each category was published and the shortlisting was to be done for
interview on the basis of essential academic advertised qualification
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -37-
prescribed for the post. On 31.7.2008, a decision was taken by the Chairman
of the Commission to call all the candidates, who were eligible for interview.
This decision was also taken individually by the Chairman of the Commission.
Thereafter, the notings indicate the decision by the Chairman, forming the
committees to interview the candidates and the dates and places alongwith the
roll numbers of the candidates, who were to be interviewed by the committees.
Nowhere in the records it is reflected that any criteria has been laid down by
the Commission for making selection of the candidates. A loose sheet has
been produced in Court which is purported to be the decision of the
Commission, laying down the criteria for making selection to the posts of
PTIs, according to which the date of the decision of the Commission was
3.8.2008. A perusal of the same would show that it does not bear any tag
mark nor does it indicate that it was either placed in an official file as it does
not contain any hole showing any tag having been inserted through it. Apart
from loose sheet, no agenda has been produced, which would indicate that a
meeting had indeed taken place of the Commission. It appears that when this
Court directed the production of the criteria for selection for the post of PTI,
this criteria was prepared and produced in Court as this is the sole and isolated
decision of the Commission, rather an unique one too.
A copy of the compendium of notifications pertaining to the
Haryana Staff Selection Commission has been produced alongwith the
records. The first notification which is issued by the General Administration
Department, General Services Haryana is dated 28.1.1970, according to
which, the Governor of Haryana, in exercise of the powers conferred by
Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in modification of all other Rules
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -38-
int his behalf, constituted the Subordinate Services Selection Board from the
date of publication of the notification. The constitution of the Board, the
terms and conditions of service of the Members thereof and its functions were
laid down therein. As per para-1, the Board consist of three Members
including the Chairman. Para-6 provided the functions of the Board,
according to which, all appointments to non-gazetted Class-III posts under the
Haryana Government, except appointments of officers and employees of
Punjab and Haryana High Court provided for in Article 229 of the
Constitution of India were mandated to be made on the advice of the Board.
State Government was competent to exclude any such posts from the purview
of the Board. The functions of the Board were enlarged, vide notification
dated 21.5.1971, vide which para-6 of the notification dated 28.1.1970 was
substituted by adding sub-paras (b) and (c) wherein promotions and transfers
from one service or post to another service or post pertaining to non-gazetted
Class-III and Class-IV posts and disciplinary matters pertaining to nongazetted
Class-III and Class-IV Government employees were included. Off
and on notifications have been issued by the General Administration
Department Haryana enlarging and curtailing the functions of the Board. Vide
notification dated 9.12.1997, the words 'Subordinate Services Selection Board'
were substituted by 'Haryana Staff Selection Commission'. Vide notification
dated 28.7.1998, sub-para (d) of para-6 was substituted, according to which,
the Commission was empowered to devise the mode of selection and fix the
criteria for selection of post for which requisition is sent to it by a Department
or an office, as it may deem appropriate and the criteria for selection of posts
fixed earlier by the Board/Commission shall be deemed to have been fixed
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -39-
under this sub-paragraph. Vide notification dated 21.6.2007, paragraph-1 was
substituted with effect from 20.4.2007, according to which, the Commission
shall consist of nine Members including the Chairman, out of whom a
minimum of two Members would be such as have held office for at least ten
years either under the Government of India or under the Government of the
State. In this notification sub-para 4 reads as follows :-
“(iv) in paragraph 6, for clause (d), the following clause
shall be substituted and shall be deemed to have been
substituted with effect from 10th January, 2006, namely :-
“(d) methods of recruitment and the
principles to be followed in making
appointments to the Group B, Group C and
Group D posts under the State Government.
The Commission shall devise the mode of
selection and fix the criteria for selection of
posts for which requisition is sent to it by a
department or an office, as it may deem
appropriate and the criteria for the selection
of posts fixed earlier by the
Board/Commission shall be deemed to have
been fixed under this clause.”
It is apparent from the above that the Commission is a multi
Member body which has been constituted under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India by issuance of a notification by the Government of
Haryana. It consists of nine Members and has to be mandatorily consulted at
the initial appointments to Group 'B' Gazetted or non-gazetted Group 'C' posts
under the State Government, as also for promotions and transfer from one
service or post to another service or post pertaining to Group 'C' and Group 'D'
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -40-
posts and disciplinary matters pertaining to Group 'C' and Group 'D'
Government employees. The Commission which is a statutory authority with
functions conferred on it as notified, has to perform as per the said mandate
and cannot act in an arbitrary manner. It has an onerous responsibility to
perform and therefore it has to function as a Body which consists of Chairman
and eight Members. Day-to-day functions can be taken care of by the
Chairman, if so delegated or conferred, but all major decisions pertaining to
the selection has to be taken by the Commission. No instructions/rules have
been produced or brought to the notice of the Court by the Commission which
would show the regulation of the functions of the Commission nor has any
decision or resolution of the Commission been produced or brought to the
notice of the Court which would suggest delegating some or any of its
functions upon the Chairman or any Member of the Commission.
On a question put by this Court to the counsel for State, who on
instructions, stated that there is no proceeding book or file being maintained
nor is it available where the record is maintained of the meeting(s) held by the
Commission or the decision(s) taken by the Commission and there is no
agenda circulated for the meeting. This indicates that the Commission is nonfunctional.
Rather the records indicate that the Chairman is all in all and
solely functions as a Commission. Strange as it may sound but this decision
dated 3.8.2008 is the only decision by the Commission in the total selection
process. In none of the earlier decisions, which have been taken in the
chequered process of selection, any of the Members of the Commission been
consulted, associated or a party thereto. It has not been stated in the reply nor
do records indicate that any of the decisions taken by the Chairman was/were
CWP No. 15656 of 2010 and other connected cases -41-
ratified by the Commission. What is apparent from the record and as stated in
Court by the counsel for the State on instructions, as recorded above,
Commission is nothing but one man show. There is no semblance of a
collective responsibility or decision making process as is postulated in the
notifications under which the Commission is constituted. The very concept
and spirit of the Commission stands butchered and banished due to there being
no consultation, association and participation by any of the Members of the
Commission in the present selection process for filling up the posts of PTIs.
The decisions in pursuance, whereto selection process has been initiated,
processed and concluded, cannot be said to be that of the Commission.
Members of the Commission, except for being Members of the Selection
Committee for holding interviews, have not participated in any decision or its
making process which reveals a very gloomy rather a ne