PARSHOTAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 22.7.1989 vide Annexure P. 2, the State of Punjab invited applications from prospective candidates to fill the eight posts to the P.C.S. (Executive Branch), four posts of Excise and Taxation Officers and five posts of Assistant Registrar co-operative Societies. In addition to the reserved posts for various other categories one post was reserved for the wards of freedom fighters for appointment as an Excise and Taxation Officers. The advertisement also provided for the method of selection and postulated that a preliminary competitive examination would be held at Patiala and those who were successful therein were to appear in the main competitive examination to be held thereafter. The petitioner who claimed to be the son of a freedom fighter duly applied for entrance in the examination and gave his first choice of service as the P.C.S. (Executive branch) and the second that of Excise and Taxation Officer. It is the admitted case of the parties that there was no reservation in favour of the wards of the freedom fighters either in the P.Cs. (Executive Branch) or against the posts of Assistants Registrars, Cooperative Societies. The petitioner qualified the main competitive examination and also appeared in the viva voce and as envisaged by the Rules governing the examination, a joint merit list was prepared and appointments were ordered to be made on merit to the posts in the P.CS. (Executive Branch), then to those of Excise and Taxation Officer and finally to those of Assistant Registrars, Co-operative Societies. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2, the Punjab Public Service Commission did not consider his candidature for the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) on the premise that as he had applied as a ward of a freedom fighter against the reserved post in the category of Excise and Taxation Officers, he was entitled to consideration only in that category. The present petitioner has been accordingly filed challenging this action of the Commission. In the written statement filed on 25.9.1991, it was admitted that the petitioner had been considered only against the post of Excise and Taxation Officer and selected for appointment thereto but the commission thereafter filed an additional affidavit in which it was categorically averred that even if the case of the petitioner had been considered for a post in P.CS. (Executive Branch) he was not liable to selection on the basis of his merit the Regulations contained in Appendix III of the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch)(Class I) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter called the Rules) as respondent No. 4 Gagandeep Singh who had got more marks in the viva voce is required to be selected on that basis. On the apparently conflicting stands taken by the respondent the petitioner filed an amended petition and the matter was ultimately admitted to a Division Bench vide orders of this Court dated 3.10.1991. The case of the petitioner now is that both he and respondent No. 4 had secured 4481 marks in the examination but as he had received 64 marks out of 75 in the interview and respondent No. 4 had secured 68, the latter had been declared successful by resolving the tie by misapplying and misinterpretation Regulation 8. It has also been averred that should it be found that die Rule had been interpreted correctly by the Public Service Commission, it was liable to be struck down as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on account of various judgments of the Supreme Court, particularly Ashok Kumar Yadav and others etc. etc. vs. State of Haryana and others, 1987 AIR(SC) 454and Mohinder Singh Garg vs. State of Punjab, 1991 1 SLR 546. The final argument is that there had been a violation of Rule 18 of the Rules in as much as the posts in the P.C.S. Executive Branch were required to be filled in the ratio of 50% by nomination and by direct recruitment and as ten persons had been nominated, another ten ought to have been selected by direct recruitment and in that eventually, the petitioner was entitled to selection.

(2.) The respondents have controverted the stand of the petitioner on the questions posed and have stated that Rule 13-A had been correctly applied as in the case of a tie a candidate securing more marks in the viva voce was liable to be declared successful. It has also been urged that the petitioner having taken his chance in the examination could not now turn around and challenge the selection process as being arbitrary. In this connection, reliable has been placed on Manak Lal Advocates vs. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi and others, 1957 AIR(SC) 425Dr. G. Sarna vs. University of Lucknow and others, 1976 2 SLR 509and Annie vs. Commissioner, Chalakudy, Municipality and others,1983 2 SLR 451.

(3.) At one of the initial hearings the counsel for the petitioner had expressed an apprehension that as the objection with regard to the lower merit of the petitioner had not been taken at the initial stage, it appeared that the commission had tampered with the record to frustrate the case of the petitioner. To allay these fears and to appreciate the arguments raised before us, we summoned the record and have examined it minutely and from a perusal thereto, we find that the fear of the petitioner is not warranted. We find that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 had been given 380- 1/2 and 388-1/2 marks respectively in the written examination but while entering these marks in the detailed Master Result sheet some mistake appears to have been committed in the case of respondent No. 4 and it appears that 388-1/2 marks were first entered but were subsequently corrected to 380-1/2. The argument of the petitioner's counsel, therefore, really goes against him as if at all a grievance could be made, it would be at the instance of respondent No. 4 whose marks have been reduced. It is further to be noted that in the master sheet aforementioned the total marks had been given not only in figures but also in words and same have duly checked and signed. In this situation, it is clear that the total marks given to the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were correctly recorded and no case of tampering has been made out.