KRISHAN KANT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case has assailed his non-selection by the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') for the post of Lecturer in Physics. The grievance made by the petitioner, which can be called out from Paras 8, 9 and 10 of the petition, is that at the time of interview, no consideration for higher academic qualification was given to the petitioner and the selection was made purely on the performance in the interview. Further, there was about 15 candidates who were interviewed within a period of two hours, which, according to the petitioner, was too short a time to judge the suitability of the candidates. It has also been averred that at the time of interview, the petitioner had completed his M. Phil and that qualification was not taken into consideration by the Commission. According to the pleadings, one Shri Ram Lal who had appeared in the interview was selected, through his academic record was much inferior as compared to the record of the petitioner. In para 10 of the petition, the grievance made is that against 17 advertised posts for Lecturers in Physics, the Commission had recornmended the names of 21 candidates without even proportionately increasing the quota of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes.

(2.) The Motion Bench on 22nd December, 1989, issued notice of motion after noticing the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, which was to the effect that at the time of interview, no consideration for higher academic qualification was given to the petitioner and the selection was made purely on the basis of the performance in the interview.

(3.) In para 8 of the written statement filed by the Commission, it has been averred that the Commission gave due credit to the academic qualifications teaching experience, co-curricular activities and publication work of all the candidates, including the petitioner. Other relevant achievements were also taken into consideration while assessing the performance of the candidates. The selected candidates were found more meritorious than the petitioner. The candidates were not selected only on the basis of interview. Further, it has been averred that sufficient time to judge the suitability of a candidate was devoted. There can be a case where the suitability of a candidate can be judged in a few minutes. It has further been averred that the qualifications taken into consideration were to be those which a candidate had obtained upto the last date of the submission of the applications, i.e. 15th December, 1988. As far as the selection of Shri Ram Lal is concerned it has been averred that the said candidate belonged to backward class and there was no comparison between said Shri Ram Lal and the petitioner who was from the general category.