JASBIR KAUR Vs. PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Punjabi University, Patiala advertised certain posts of Clerks/CIerk-cum-typist on 19.11.1991. 25% posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and 5% posts were reserved for Backward Classes and the selection had to be made on the basis of written test/type test and interview. The qualifications prescribed in the advertisement for the said posts is Matric/Higher Secondary 1st Division or 10 plus 2 Second Division or Graduate. With typewriting speed of 30 words per minute in Punjabi. Thus a person having passed Matrie/Higher Secondary with 1st Division or 10 plus 2 with Second Division or Graduate is eligible for appointment. About 2700 candidates, including the petitioners, applied for the said posts. Out of the said 2700 candidates appeared, only 50 candidates passed the type test. Thereafter interview was fixed for 8.5.1993 but the University postponed the interview without fixing any further date. In their letter dated 30.4.1993 it is stated that the new date for interview would be intimated later to the candidates. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 12093 of 1994 for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hold the interview for the posts and prepare the panel for appointment to the posts of Clerks/CIerk-cum-typist. The said writ petition was allowed directing the University to hold an interview of the candidates including the petitioners therein who had passed the written and typing test within one month from the date of the order i.e. 24.10.1994. In compliance with the said order of this Court, interviews were held on 22.11.1994 and the petitioners who passed the test appeared for the interview and the Selection Committee consisting of the Registrar, Deputy Registrar and 2/3 other members held the interview and finalized the select list and recommended the same to the Vice-Chancellor for appointments. Before approval of the select list, the Registrar of the University retired on 31.12.1994 and another Registrar namely Raghubir Singh joined. Thereafter, the said Registrar who is the 3rd respondent again fixed the date of interview by calling only those candidates who have passed the Matriculation examination with 1st Division and the other candidates who passed their Higher Secondary in 1st Division or 10 plus 2 in second Division or Graduates are not called for interview. The date of interview was fixed for 6.2.1995. This procedure was adopted by the 3rd respondeat to accommodate his own candidates for the post of Clerk/Clerk-cum-typist. The petitioners approached this Court challenging the fresh interview which was fixed for 6.2.1995. According to the petitioners, the interview was held on 22.11.1994 in accordance with the orders of thik Court cannot be set naught. The action of the respondents fixing a fresh date of interview on 6.2.1995 is illegal and in contravention of the orders of this Court. According to the petitioners, they passed the written and typing test and were interview on 22.11.1994 and they were selected and ignoring their claims the second interview was fixed even without calling the petitioners for interview fixed on 6.2.1995. According to the petitioners they possess the requisite qualification and completed all the formalities to the post of Clerk/Clerk-cum-typist. Therefore, the petitioners prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the interview fixed for 6.2.1995 and direct the respondents to make appointment to the post of Clerk/Clerk-cum-typist on the basis of selection list prepared in pursuance of the interview held on 22.11.1994.

(2.) Respondents 1 and 2 filed a written statement contending inter alia as follows.

(3.) According to the respondents about 1700 candidates appeared in the written test on 8.11.1992 in pursuance of the advertisement issued in November, 1991 for filling up the posts and the candidates who were successful in the written (est were called for typing test and those who cleared the type test were called for interview. According to the respondents, the criteria for selection is that the candidates who secured 50% marks in the general category and 40% marks in the case of reserved category of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and Backward Classes in the written test were to be called for interview and it was also necessary that the candidate must pass the type test with a minimum speed of 30 words per minute. The said criteria for selection was formulated-after due consideration by the Vice-Chancellor. It is further stated that in pursuance of the decision of this Court dated 24.10.1994 in C.W.P. No. 12093 of 1994 the interviews were held on 22.11.1994 and the petitioners appeared in the interview on the said date. It is further averred that on examination of the list of candidates selected it was found that the persons who were not eligible to be called for interview in view of the fact that they did not secure the qualifying marks in the written/type test, had been called for interview. It was also found that the candidates belonging to the categories of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe who had secured more than the qualifying marks but were less than 50% marks for the general category had been excluded from interview. Thus grow injustice was about to be perpetuated against the candidates who had secured more than the qualifying marks, have not been called for interview. Therefore, the result of the interview conducted on 22.11.1994 was not declared. According to the respondents, all the eligible candidates have now been again called for interview to be held on 14.2.1995. Petitioners 1,2, 3 and 5 have again been called for interview as they all have secured over 50% marks in the written test and have also passed the typing test. According to the respondents, petitioners 4 and 7 have not secured the qualifying marks and petitioner No. 6 on the last date of applications was matric Ilnd Class and did not have 10 plus 2 or Graduate. Thus in order to do justice, among all the successful candidates, the University called for fresh interview. It is also averred that petitioners made false statement that those candidates who have passed Matriculation examination with 1st Division had been called for interview and those who passed Higher Secondary, 10 plus 2 or Graduation, have been left out. For the misstatement of facts, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.