VINAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought the quashing of selection of respondent No. 3 to 7 on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in Scheduled Caste category claiming that the selection has been in violation of rules and instructions. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the selection has not been conducted fairly. On the basis of written examination, the petitioner claims to have secured 52 marks and his position in the merit list was 35, whereas, respondent No. 3 & 4 have not even secured the pass marks in the screening test as respondent No. 3 is alleged to have secured 20 marks and respondent No. 4 has secured only 16 marks, and their ranks were 158 and 159 respectively. Similarly respondents No. 5 to 7 were also less meritorious than the petitioner.

(2.) THE claim of the respondent No. 1 is that in view of large number of applications having been received the written screening test was only meant for shorting -listing the candidates for interview. The marks obtained in the written screening test are not to be counted for the final selection. For each category, the candidates, three times the number of posts advertised were called for interview after screening test which was meant for short -listing the candidates to the posts reserved to that category. At the time of calling the candidates, it was found that only 159 candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category had appeared in the written examination, whereas, 67 posts were reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category. Therefore, the respondent Commission decided that all the candidates of Scheduled Caste category, who appeared in the written screening test be called for interview. In view of the above said circumstances, written screening test was not the criteria to determine the merit. So far as merit is concerned, the criteria for distribution of 100 marks for viva -voce has been equally applied to all the candidates. The criteria has been produced before this Court in a sealed cover, which has been opened. The criteria is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: -

(3.) THERE does not appear to be any illegality in the distribution of marks of viva -voce as mentioned hereinabove. Moreover, the said criteria has also not been challenged by the petitioner. Respondent No. 5 Jai Singh and respondent No. 6 Parkash have not been selected as per the select list, as such the writ qua Jai Singh and Parkash is not maintainable. So far as, respondent No. 7 Rakesh Kumar Muwal is concerned, he has obtained 43 marks. In order to determine the comparative merit of the petitioner, his score under personal achievement and interview have been examined by me from the results, which have been produced before this Court. The marks obtained by petitioner and respondent No. 3, 4 & 7 under different heads are as follows: -