VIKRAMSINGH Vs. SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 3/06/1988 (reported in AIR 1988 Punj and Har 298) (FB). The Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana by an advertisement dated 7/08/1985 invited applications for the posts of Excise Inspectors in the Excise and Taxation Department. Originally the number of posts was 11 but was subsequently raised to 15. These posts of Excise Inspectors are governed by the Haryana ' Excise and Taxation Inspectorate (State Service, Class III) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It was further provided in the Rules that no candidate shall be deemed to have qualified for viva voce unless he obtains a minimum of 33 Per Cent marks in each paper and 40 Per Cent in aggregate. There was, however, no minimum marks for the viva voce. The total marks of the written papers and viva voce was to determine rank of the candidate.

(2.) THE Selection Board held a written test on 23/24-11-1985. THE result of the written test was declared on 15-1-1986. THE appellants were declared successful in the written test and were placed at SI. Nos. 5 and 7 respectively in the general category. According of to the Rules following were the papers of the examination <FRM>JUDGEMENT_686_1_1991Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) IT has been sbmitted that the Selection Board had already interviewed the candidates by following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadavs case and the appellants were put in the select list. The Selection Board however decided that all the candidates who had qualified in the written examination of the Excise Inspectors may be reinterviewed as the requirement of the Rules had not been properly followed in respect of allotting of marks in the viva voce and also not prepared the results of the candidates who appeared for interview before the previous Board. According to the appellants this decision was wholly illegal. The action of the Board in seeking to reintrview all the 290 candidates was abundantly illegal. Further, the basis on which reinterview was sought to be held was again contrary to the law laid down by this Court. The appellants thus challenged the action'of the respondents in not declaring the result according to the first interview and its decision to reinterview all the applicants by keeping 100 marks for viva voce which was 28.5 Per Cent of the total marks as illegal and unconstitutional.