VIMLESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Haryana Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') published an advertisement on 7.6.2008 in local newspaper inviting applications for three posts of Accounts Assistant for General Category in Haryana Warehousing Corporation. As per advertisement, the requisite qualification was Bachelor of Commerce with at least 50% marks with three years experience either in a Government Department or Public Sector Undertaking or Commercial Organization of repute on the post carrying pay scale not below the pay scale of post of Accounts Clerk in the Corporation i.e. Rs. 3050 -4590. The candidates should have also studied Hindi/Sanskrit upto matric standard. The petitioner along with other candidates applied for the post of Accounts Assistant and selection was made on the basis of merit of academic qualification and interview. Respondents No. 4 to 6 were selected, whereas, the petitioner was not found to be meritorious by the Commission. The selection of respondents No. 4 to 6 is subject matter of challenge in the present petition by raising various grounds.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is more meritorious than respondents No.4 to 6 as he is having more marks in matriculation examination, 10+2, B.Com and also have more experience than the selected candidates but still he has not been selected. Learned counsel further submits that the selected candidates were not having the requisite experience. Even respondent No.4 was not having any experience as the column of experience was left blank in the application form, still he has been awarded marks for experience. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the criteria adopted by the Commission is not only unjust but also marks were awarded to selected candidates arbitrarily. The selected candidates have been awarded 20 to 21 marks, whereas, the petitioner has been awarded only 9 marks. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Krishan Yadav and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1994 3 SCT 581 and of this Court in Dr. Sunil Kumar and others Vs. Punjabi University and others passed in C.W.P. No. 18735 of 2009 decided on 23.8.2011, in support of his contentions.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent -State as well as respondents No.4 to 6 submit that the petitioner had participated in the selection process and was awarded marks as per his academic qualification and in the interview as per performance. The selection was made on the basis of academic qualification and performance in viva voce. The criteria adopted by the Commission was legally sound as per law settled by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case titled as Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana, 1987 AIR(SC) 454 and Anzar Ahmad Vs. State of Bihar and others, 1993 5 SLR 798. In view of ratio of said judgment, the marks for viva voce was within the limit of 12.2%. He further submits that neither any allegation of malafide has been alleged against the Selection Committee nor against the Commission and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The method of awarding marks was uniform which was adopted for all candidates including the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 6 also submits that submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner is contrary to facts and record as the selected candidates are having requisite experience from a concern which is well reputed. He further submits that it is not necessary that the persons who are good in academics is also good in viva -voce as the marks for viva -voce are based on the performance in the interview conducted by the Selection committee. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 6 also submits that the experience certificates of the selected candidates were considered and it cannot be said that they were not having experience. Respondent No.4 has been shown to be without experience, whereas, it was annexed with the application form and that documents have been supplied to the petitioner under RTI. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents available on record. Admittedly, three posts of Accounts Assistant for General Category were to be filled up and for that purpose, an advertisement No. 3/2008 dated 7.6.2008 was published in the local newspaper. The educational qualification, age, pay scale and other particulars required for filling up the aforesaid post are as under: -