MUKESH BALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the selection of private respondents No. 5 to 25 on the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Female) (hereinafter referred to as 'MPHW (F)') on the ground that the Selection Committee, while assigning marks in the interview, has intentionally given more marks to those candidates whom they wanted to select and lesser marks in the interview to those whom they wanted to exclude irrespective of the academic marks obtained by the candidates as per the criteria laid down by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission for the said head. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, in pursuance to the advertisement, applied for the post of MPHW (F) under the BC(B) Category, for which out of 329 posts, 21 were reserved. Petitioner secured 34.68 marks out of 50 marks in the academic qualifications and in the interview, she has been assigned 11 marks only out of 25 marks. Referring to the details of the marks assigned to the candidates, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-12 with the writ petition, he contends that the candidates, who had secured higher marks in the academics, have intentionally been granted lesser marks in the viva-voce, which has resulted in exclusion of meritorious candidates to the benefit of all those persons, who have been selected. He contends that this indicates the arbitrariness on the part of the Interview Committee in assigning the marks. The Committee was aware of the academic marks scored by each of the candidates and accordingly the interview marks were adjusted resulting in the selection of the candidates who are the private respondents herein. He, on this basis, contends that the selection stands vitiated. Apart from this, mala-fides at the behest of respondent No. 4-Lal Singh, who was appointed as a Member of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, have been alleged viz-a-viz respondents No. 9 and 10, who are stated to be relatives of respondent No. 4. He contends that there is no affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. The relationship is also not denied. The only response, which has been given by the official respondents, is limited to the extent that the said respondent No. 4 was not a Member of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission at the time when the interviews were held. No specific date of his appointment has been mentioned. He, on this basis, contends that the selection deserves to be set aside.

(2.) On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the assertions of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as it has been specifically stated in the written statement, which has been filed, that respondent No. 4 was appointed to the Commission after the interviews were over. He further contends that even if respondent No. 4 was a Member of the Commission, it would not have made any difference as he did not participate in the process of selection. His further submission is that merely because respondents No. 9 and 10 are related to respondent No. 4 that will not mean that their selection has been made under the influence of respondent No. 4 in any manner. Further submission has been made that the academic marks were not disclosed to the Interview Committee and, therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that the marks were assigned in the interview by the Committee adjusting the interview marks according to the requirement and selecting the persons of their choice cannot be accepted. Prayer has, thus, been made for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the records of the case.