SURINDER KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Director, Social Welfare, Punjab Chandigarh vide Annexure P-1 had intimated the Aanganwadi Workers having the requisite experience to appear in the written test to be held on 16.1.1994 as per the rules specified therein. The petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8533, 10430, 10431, 15673, 10123, 10661, 13919, 13796 and 11148 of 1994 alongwith private respondents who had the requisite experience as Aanganwadi Workers applied for the post and appeared in the written test held on 16.1.1994 at Chandigarh. Interviews of 77 candidates were held in June, 1994. The private respondents are stated to have been selected and appointed as Supervisors on the basis of the written test and the interview held which is alleged to have been manipulated on account of extraneous considerations. The process of selection and appointment is alleged to have been vitiated by the illegalities committed by the official respondents by not following the prescribed procedure under the Rules. It is submitted that after the written test, the respondents had no authority to hold the interview and thereafter change the merit into demerit. Some of the petitioners who were not called for the interview claim to have obtained more marks than the marks obtained by those who were called for the interview and subsequently selected. It is submitted that all the 77 candidates were interviewed within one and half hours which proves that the interview was a farce. Some of the candidates are alleged to have been awarded 30-1/2 marks in the interview. It is further submitted that marks of some of the selected candidates were also inflated. Many cuttings and manipulations are alleged to have been made in preparing the award list ignoring the claims of the candidates like the petitioners. Some of the candidates who have actually appeared in the written test conducted on 16.1.1994 have not been included in the award list prepared by the Department. The selection is alleged to be contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution requiring interference by the Court. It is also submitted that as the selection has been made for more vacancies than the advertised posts the same were liable to be quashed.

(2.) In the reply filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 it is submitted that the Government had fixed 50 per cent quota of Aanganwadi Workers in direct recruitment to the posts of Supervisors subjects to the condition that minimum 25 per cent posts of Supervisors were to be filled from amongst Aanganwadi Workers and for the said purpose applications of eligible Aanganwadi Workers were invited through the concerned Child Development Project Officers vide Annexure R-1. A total number of 1667 candidates applied who were found eligible for appearance in the test. They were all issued Roll Numbers for appearing in the written test which was fixed to be held on 16.1.1994. Upon order by this Court seven more candidates were also issued Roll Numbers and allowed to appear in the written test. Out of 21 posts of Supervisors, 10 posts were allotted to graduate candidates and 11 posts for matriculate candidates. Keeping in view the result of the written test, the candidates who were on merit and were in top positions and by adopting the method of calling three times candidates for each category, a total number of 78 candidates were called for interview. It is contended that the appointments to the post of Supervisor have been made as per proceedings of the Departmental Selection Committee after conducting interview of the eligible candidates. The averment of the petitioners of being Aanganwadi Workers and their appearance in the written test is not disputed. The result of the successful candidates who had secured top positions in the test is stated to have been placed on the Notice Board in front of the office of respondent No. 2 and such successful candidates were directed to appear for interview on 20.6.1994. The criteria approved by the Departmental Selection Committee was adopted by the Government for making selection to the posts of Supervisor. Respondent No. 3 was not a Member of the Departmental Selection Committee. Similarly, Additional Director, Joint Director and the Deputy Director were also not Members of the said Committee. The Selection Committee comprised of the following :-

(3.) In the replication filed on behalf of some of the petitioners, it is submitted that the appointments have not been made according to the stand taken by the respondents in their reply/affidavit. It is submitted that in the first 21 appointments, only 3 graduates have been appointed whereas at least 10 were required to be appointed from this category. The appointments of Scheduled Castes and Backward Class candidates is also alleged to have not been made according to their quota. The candidates are alleged to have been called for interview without following any order of merit. The petitioners have specifically referred to the candidate having Roll No. 1575 who had secured 42 marks only was called for interview whereas some of the petitioners who had secured as high as 61, 60 and 50 marks were not called for interview. It is further contended that the candidates who had obtained much less marks than the petitioners have been selected and appointed by the respondents ignoring the rights of the petitioners. It is submitted that even according to Annexure P-3 which is stated to have been prepared on the basis of the certified copy of the award list supplied to the petitioners, 27 candidates who obtained less marks than 60 marks were called for the interview. A pointed reference is made to the case of petitioner No. 7 of Civil Writ Petition No. 8533 of 1994 who as per the Award List is claimed to have obtained 61-1/2 marks and not 41-1/2 marks as mentioned in the written statement. The whole of the selection process is alleged to be against the provisions of law.