SOM VEER LAMBA Vs. HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the result (Annexure P-l) declared by the Haryana Public Service Commission in respect of the petitioner on the basis of the selection made for recruitment to Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch). The petitioner has prayed that apart from quashing the result (Annexure P-1), the respondent-Commission be directed to declare him as qualified within the meaning of Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 and he be recommended for appointment to the post of Subordinate Judge against the post reserved for freedom fighters, their children or their grand children.

(2.) Pursuant to the advertisement No.3 issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) for recruitment to 24 posts of Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch), the petitioner submitted an application. Out of the 24 posts, three were reserved for Ex-servicemen of Haryana. The petitioner appeared in the written examination conducted by the Commission and secured 509 marks out of the total 900 marks. However, he was not called for interview. This led to the filing of Civil Writ Petition No. 1615 of 1990, which was dismissed by this Court in limine. In S.L.P. No.13314 of 1991, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh decision. This Court allowed the writ petition on 13.10.1993 and directed the Haryana Public Service Commission to arrange for the viva-voce test of the petitioner. In compliance of the order of the High Court, the petitioner was called for viva-voce test on 23.11.1993. He was interviewed by a selection committee which consisted of the Chairman of the Commission and four members. Justice N.K. Sodhi of Punjab and Haryana High Court participated as an Expert. The petitioner was interviewed for about half an hour. On the basis of performance of the petitioner, he was awarded 41 marks and, thus, in all he secured 550 marks out of total 1020 marks.

(3.) The petitioner has questioned the validity of the marks awarded to him on the ground of arbitrariness and mala fides. According to the petitioner, no discernible principle was adopted by the Commission for awarding marks to him. The petitioner has submitted that he had qualified for viva-voce test in 1983, 1984 and 1986 but was not called for interview. According to him, challenge to the action of the Commission could not be made in the year 1986 due to personal problem, but this time the Commission has evaluated his performance with a biased mind. Assertion of the petitioner is that the Expert alone has the power to make the assessment regarding the quality and character of the candidate and his integrity and the members of the selection committee can give marks as per the assessment made by the Expert and as he was given 41 marks in the interview, it must be presumed that he was awarded B' grade by the Expert. The petitioner has pleaded that the guidelines given by the Expert for award of the minimum and maximum marks have not been followed by the members of the Commission and the members gave marks arbitrarily. In para 8 of the writ petition, it has been alleged while he has been awarded only 41 marks, the other candidates belonging to the category of Ex-servicemen viz. Shri Manmohan Dhonchak and Shri Chander Bhan were awarded 64 and 80 marks respectively and three candidates belonging to Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes viz. Shri Gulab Singh, Shri Jagdish Rai Duggal and Shri Chaman Lal Mohal were awarded 80, 80 and 74 marks respectively by interpreting the categorisation given by the Expert as 'B'. According to the petitioner 1 to 40 marks can be given to a candidate graded as 'C by the Expert and one who was graded as 'B' should have been given marks between 41 and 80 and the one graded as A' should have been given marks between 81 and 120 and that although he has been categorized in 'B' grade, the members of the Commission gave him the lowest possible marks and in this manner his non-selection has been assured by the members of the Commission. In paras 10, 11, 12, 15 and 17, the petitioner has levelled general allegations by stating that in Haryana State all kinds of political appointments are made under the pressure of politics, caste and dependability factors and even the appointment of Chairman and members of the Commission are not spared by these factors and although the Chairman and members of the Commission are expected lo discharge functions judiciously and not under pressure, in fact the Commission is not only caste hidden but is under the influence of various banners of politicians who got appointed them in this body and, therefore, these unwanted factors may influence the judicious mind of the members of the Commission. The petitioner has relied on an article written by a former member of the Commission, Shri D.R. Chaudhry, and a news item published in the Tribune dated 14.2,1994 and has stated that there is possibility that balance of minds of the members of the Commission may be tilted by extraneous factors. Further assertion of the petitioner is that he is a non-persona grata as he is neither recognized nor acceptable to caste forces and other factors under the influence of which the worthy members of the Commission were deemed to have been appointed and, therefore, the members of the selection committee did not appreciate the quality and character of the petitioner and they nullified the assessment made by the Expert. The petitioner has further stated that the members of the selection committee awarded marks to him according to their whims and conjectures. It has also been slated that there is strong presumption that assessment of the Expert was manipulated with biased mind. The petitioner has stated that the Expert made assessment of the petitioner on the basis of his overall intellectual quality atone and did not assess him from the point of view of rectitude and integrity and if the Expert has made assessment on the basis of quality and character, he would have awarded 'A' grade to the petitioner. The petitioner goes on to say that there is no use to elaborate the above noted error of the Expert but he allowed the members to interpret his assessment without providing guidelines with regard to converting the assessment into actual marks.