SANJAY RISHISHWER Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGARD being had to the similar controversy involved in the aforesaid two cases, they have been heard analogously together. The facts of WP No. 1342/2012 and WP No.556/2012 are narrated as under:- The petitioners before this Court who are working as Police Constables have filed this present petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to produce the entire record relating to the selection process which took place for the post of Subedar, Sub-Inspector and Platoon Commander. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of select list published on 30/31.12.2011 Annexure P/3. The petitioners have also prayed before this Court for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to hold fresh interview process by constituting an independent Interview Board.

(2.) THE petitioner's contention is that an advertisement was issued by M.P. Professional Examination Board inviting applications from eligible candidates for 515 vacancies of Subedar, Sub-Inspectors and Platoon Commanders and the petitioners submitted their applications in response to the same. It has been further stated that the written examination was comprising of two papers, first paper was in respect of Hindi and English and the second paper was in respect of General Knowledge. It has also been stated that the Physical Test was of 100 marks and the interview was of 50 marks. The petitioner's contention is that they performed well in the written examination as well as in the Physical Test however, they have been deliberately awarded less marks in the process of selection which took place pursuant to their selection in the process of written as well as the Physical Test. The petitioner's contention is that they have been awarded less marks by the Interview Board deliberately and, therefore, the entire process of selection deserves to be set-aside. The petitioners have enclosed Annexure P/5 which is a list of about 53 candidates who are members of the Police Department and the contention of learned Senior Counsel is that all the 53 persons have been granted less marks even though they have performed very well in the written examination. It has been argued that on account of a class bias, less marks have been awarded to in service candidates and persons who are from general category have been awarded higher marks in order to eliminate the in service candidates. Another ground has been raised by the petitioners and their contention is that 15% marks were assigned for the interview and the action of the respondents in assigning 15% marks in the process of interview is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Hasia and others vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others reported in (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 722. He also placed reliance on a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and others (1985) 4 Supreme Court Cases 417 wherein the Apex Court has considered the issue of bias in the process of selection. The petitioners contention is that the Interview Board has deliberately awarded less marks to in-service candidates and the members of the Interview Board have not awarded marks independently to the petitioners and marks have been awarded after arriving at a consensus. It has also been argued before this Court that the marks obtained by a candidate were brought to the notice of the Interview Board and the Interview Board in order to eliminate the in-service candidates have deliberately awarded less marks to the petitioners and to the persons who are identically placed like the petitioner and, therefore, the entire selection stands vitiated. The ground has also been raised that the Professional Examination Board was directed to organise interview division wise however, the same Interview Board has interviewed all candidates who were declared as successful in the written examination as well as in the Physical Test. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the process of interview and their contention is that a fresh interview be directed by this Court.

(3.) THE contention of the respondent/State is that the Interview Board was constituted by the respondents and as many as 7 IPS Officers were hailing from different places and 6 out of them were having other States as their home states and based upon the performance of candidates marks have been awarded to the petitioners as well as to other candidates belonging to other categories. It has been further stated that the object of interview was to assess the personal suitability of the candidate for the career in Police Service and the Interview Board has assessed each and every candidate accordingly and based upon the performance before the Interview Board after minutely observing each and every candidate marks have been awarded and no element of bias is involved in the process of interview. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of at motion hearing stage itself with the consent of the parties.