SAHIL AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of a bunch of petitions bearing CWP Nos. 12835, 14158, 20993 of 2012, 1953, 15477, 18249 and 24401 of 2013, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The issue raised is regarding selection and appointment to the post of Inspector Grade-II in Food and Civil Supplies Department, Punjab. However, the facts and pleadings from CWP No. 12835 of 2012 are being noticed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that advertisement for selection for 1,289 posts of Inspector Grade II was issued in the year 2010. The cut-off date for qualifications and other eligibility conditions was 31.1.2010. The selection was to be based only on written examination, for which criteria had been published in the advertisement. 35% of the total marks were prescribed as qualifying marks. On 18.4.2010, written test was conducted, the result of which was declared on 2.5.2010. It was roll number-wise as well as merit-wise of selected candidates in general category. There were total 643 posts in general category. Last selected candidate in that category had secured 44.35% marks. Waiting list of 129 candidates in general category was also notified, in terms of which the last candidate was having 43.15% marks. Some of the candidates raised objection regarding the questions in the written test and also the answer keys thereto. The response of the State was that the test had been outsourced to University Institute of Applied Management Sciences, Panjab University, Chandigarh, hence the department was not at fault, however, finding merit in the issues raised the answer sheets were directed to be re-evaluated, in terms of the error found. The revised result was supplied by the University to the department concerned on 19.5.2011, but still no action was taken on the basis of the revised result, in terms of which the marks obtained by some of the candidates had increased, whereas in cases of some of the candidates, the same decreased. It was only in response to the enquiry under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 'the 2005 Act') that copy of the revised result was supplied to the petitioners. As per the revised result, the last selected candidate in general category at Sr. No. 643 secured 46.58% marks, as compared to the earlier figure at 44.35% marks. All the private respondents, who have been permitted to continue in service, have secured marks below 46.58% marks. Some of them were appointed out of the first select list, whereas some were appointed out of the waiting list. The petitioners have secured marks more than the private respondents in the revised result, hence, they deserve to be appointed.

(3.) It was submitted that when under the 2005 Act, the revised result was intimated to the petitioners, CWP Nos. 20226 of 2011 Pawan Bishnoi and another v. State of Punjab and others, 22596 of 2011 Sahil Aggarwal v. State of Punjab and others and 3170 of 2012 Sonu Sharma v. State of Punjab and another were filed claiming appointment on the plea that persons already appointed were having marks less than the petitioners therein. The same were disposed of by this court by directing the authorities to consider their representations. In terms thereof, in CWP Nos. 12835 and 14158 of 2012, vide orders dated 31.5.2012, the claim of the petitioners therein was rejected.