STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above noted appeals involve a common question of law, hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. THEre may be some minor differences here and there on facts but without effecting the main question involved, hence for the purposes of dealing with the matter, we refer to the facts in Civil Appeal Nos.2305-06/1999. THE main question for our consideration in these appeals is as to whether it was competent for the Punjab Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') to resort to screening test with a view to shortlist the number of candidates to bring it to the ratio of three to five candidates per vacancy and further, whether keeping in view the efficiency required for the services in respect of which selection and appointments was to be made, could a written test be held to fix some minimum cut off marks, where process of selection was by interview of eligible candidates belonging to reserve category.

(2.) THE High Court, in the judgments impugned in the above noted appeals, held that the action of the Commission in holding the screening test and prescribing the minimum qualifying marks was unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. Hence, gave a direction that the Commission would interview the petitioners if not already interviewed and declare the result of the selection as per their merit within the time specified. THE Commission has preferred the above noted appeals along with the State of Punjab as one of the appellants. THE main thrust of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission is that the Commission is a constitutional and independent authority and it is its duty to make an endeavour to secure efficiency in the public administration by selecting the suitable candidates for the public services. While discharging such a duty, it is submitted that it would not be sub- servient to the direction of the government unless permissible under the law. Thus, to the extent indicated above, there may be some conflict in the stand between the State Government and the Commission. But both are impleaded as appellants, the lead was taken by the learned counsel appearing for the Commission, who virtually, alone made his submissions.

(3.) THE Resolution of the Public Service Commission upon which main thrust has been provided, reads as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_732_SUPREME6_2003Html3.htm</FRM> (Emphasis supplied) THE other resolution on which emphasis has been laid and which is also reflected in the tenor of the arguments of the learned counsel for the Commission, reads as under :