SHIV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Haryana Staff Selection Commission issued an advertisement dated 8.7.2013 inviting applications for recruitment to various posts including 30 posts of Junior Coach Volley ball. Out of these, three posts were earmarked for the Special Backward Category (SBC). The present petitioner was an applicant to such process of selection for the post of Junior Coach Volley ball against the Special Backward Category initiated in terms of the advertisement dated 8.7.2013.

(2.) The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the selection list dated 21.5.2014, Annexure P3, vide which private respondents No.3 to 5 belonging to the Special Backward Category have been duly selected to the post in question. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner has remained unsuccessful and his name does not figure in the select list.

(3.) Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the selection list dated 21.5.2014 primarily on the ground that in the process of selection, a criteria had been followed in which 67% weightage was assigned for academic record and 33% marks were assigned for interview/viva voce and said marks are excessive in nature and have vitiated the selection process. Learned counsel would argue that allocation for marks for interview/viva voce to the extent of 33% is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble SC in the case of Ashok Kumar Ashok Kumar Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1985 4 SCC 417 St Sri Ashok Alias Somanna Gowda and another v. State of Karnataka by its Chief Secy. and others,1992 1 RSJ 99. It has 99 further been argued that the petitioner had secured the highest marks under the parameter of academic record but has been given extremely low grade in the viva voce and on such count, the selection process suffers from the vice of arbitrariness.