UTTARAKHAND PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION Vs. JAGMOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, Public Services Commission, is the Constitutional body constituted under Article 315 of Constitution of India. The petitioner is the Selection Making Body of Public Services, which comes within the purview of the Commission. The petitioner conducts examinations, screening tests and interviews under the provisions of relevant Service Rules and the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1976 [adopted by the Uttarakhand State] and the Service Rules framed by the State Government for the purpose of the selection on the various posts in various departments. 1976 Rules stipulate that there are specific provisions with respect to the constitutions of Interview Boards, Panel of Examiners, Conduct of Examination, Declaration of results of successful candidates etc. for the purpose of fair selection, which is to be made by the petitioner. It is submitted that as per the provisions contained therein, it is obligatory to the authorities of the petitioner that secrecy of the selection be maintained at every level.

(2.) IT is asserted in the petition that in the year 2002, Govt. of Uttarakhand notified vacancies for the recruitment on the posts of Junior Engineers in the different departments of the Govt. of Uttarakhand and has formulated Recruitment Service Rule, namely, Uttarakhand Subordinate Engineering Service (Emergency Direct Recruitment) Rules, 2002. According to the Notification and Service Rules, a combined written examination was to be conducted by I.I.T. Roorkee and, thereafter, the petitioner was to prepare a merit list and declare result of written examination and thereafter to conduct the interview and made recommendation for selection to the post of Junior Engineer in different departments. In fulfillment of the assignment, after receiving the marks of written examination from I.I.T. Roorkee, the petitioner declared the result of written examination, merit -wise and category -wise, and thereafter, called the successful candidates for interview. After conducting interview, result of successful candidates was declared, merit -wise, category -wise and department -wise vide Notification dated 15.05.2004. It is asserted that vide Govt. Order dated 29.04.2004, the Govt. withdrew benefit of 10 bonus marks and providing further thereon that, in case in apprentice and direct employee are found in the same footage, preference will be given to the apprentice i.e. if both candidates apprentice as well as direct selected candidates obtain equal marks in the selection, in that event, preference will be given to the apprentice holders and accordingly, preference was given to the trained apprentice by the petitioner in the selection at the time of interview and final result was prepared on that basis and the result of successful candidates was declared on 15.05.2006 and recommendation thereof was sent to the Government.

(3.) IT is asserted that during selection process, several writ petitions were filed before this Court challenging the aforesaid selection, basically on the ground that no waitage has been given to the trained apprentice in the aforesaid selection. The respondent no. 1 also filed similar Writ Petition No. 250 (S/B) of 2006 seeking additional benefit on the basis of trained apprentice. The writ petitions, which were filed seeking benefit of apprentice, were finally disposed of by this Court with a direction that the trained apprentice should have been given 10 bonus marks as provided under the amended Rule. This Court further issued direction to the petitioner to grant 10 bonus marks to all the apprentice holders and prepare a fresh merit list holding that the petitioner committed an error in relying in Govt. Order dated 29.04.2004, as the same could not override the amended provisions of the Rule formulated under Section 309 of the Constitution of India. On filing Special Leave Petition by the Govt. of Uttarakhand, the Honble Apex Court passed status -quo order and the Special Leave Petition is still pending. It is further stated that to assess the suitability of the candidates, the Interview Board frames its own criteria for the purpose of selection and the said criteria is secret, so that in future selection, the secrecy of the petitioner may be maintained and if this criteria is exposed by way of any information given under Right to Information Act, it will cause exposure of secrecy of selection process of the petitioner, which is not in public interest.