SATYA PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an advertisement, the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana invited applications for 208 posts of Mathematics Masters and the last date for the receipt of applications was Aug. 10.1991. The entire selection made by the respondents was challenged in this court and the same was quashed. In appeal to the Supreme Court, their Lordships maintained the selection already made but issued directions to the respondents to consider the claim of those candidates who had not been selected and prepare a panel for further appointments that would remain alive for one year. In compliance with these directions, the candidates including the petitioner who, were not selected earlier, were interviewed by the Selection Committee on 20.11.1992. As per the criteria for selection, the Selection Committee had fixed 100 marks out of which marks were allotted to each candidate under different heads including 10 marks for extra-curricular activities. It is common case of the parties that the petitioner was given 40 marks out of 100 under different heads and he was not selected. It is also admitted that the petitioner was not given any marks for the extracurricular activities inspite of the fact that he produced certificates before the Selection Committee at the time of interview showing his participation in extra-curricular activities like football, 400 metres race and Quiz Contest at District/Zonal Level. The original certificates have been produced before us and we have perused the same. It appears that the petitioner did participate in extra- curricular activities as mentioned in the certificates at the Zonal/District Level. If some weightage had been given to the petitioner in terms of the criteria adopted by the Selection Committee the petitioner would have got more than 40 marks and in that event he would have been selected because candidates who obtained 41 marks in all have already been given appointments. In reply to the averments made by the petitioner in regard to weightage for extra-curricular activities, all that has been stated is that the certificates produced by the petitioner before the Selection Committee were not relevant. We do not think so. The petitioner has taken part in extra-curricular activities as is clear from the certificates and the Selection Committee should have taken those certificates into consideration while evaluating his merit. It not having been done, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the certificates which he will again produce in original before the Selection Committee/Competent authority. The Selection Committee will give due weightage to the certificates and decide the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. Petition allowed.