HARBANS SINGH BAJWA (SARDAR) Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is being decided along with Civil Writ Petition Nos.4716 of 1993, 4885 of 1993, 5301 of 1993, 5987 of 1993, 6024 of 1993, 6427 of 1993, 7310 of 1993, 7884 of 1993, 8068 of 1993 and 15534 of 1994 because almost identical prayers have been made in all the petitions.

(2.) A brief reference to the facts of C.W.P. No.4012 of 1993 is necessary for the purpose of this decision. In the year 1991 the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') advertised 62 posts of Junior Engineers vide Annexure P1. Of these, 36 posts were of Junior Engineers (Field), 21 posts of Junior Engineers (Sub-station) and 5 posts of Junior Engineers (Test). 15 of these posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes/Tribes, 6 for Backward Classes and 9 for Ex-Servicemen of Haryana domicile. The minimum qualifications for appointment to these posts were 3 years Diploma in Mechanical/Electrical/Electronics Engineering and Hindi upto Matric Standard. It was also mentioned that candidates having higher qualification would be given preference. Petitioner No.l, who holds Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (72.35% marks) and who has also passed B.E. (Mechanical) with 66.3% marks, applied for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer in response to Annexure P1. Similarly, petitioner No.2, who has passed Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with 64.26% marks and who has done A.M.I.E. with 61.6% rnarks and has 8 years' experience to his credit applied for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer. Petitioner No.3 Ashok Kumar, who passed Diploma in Electrical Engineering on 28.8.1992 did not apply because he did not possess the requisite qualifications on the last date fixed for the receipt of applications, i.e. 4.12.1991. Petitioners No.l and 2 were interviewed on 11.7.1992 by one of the 3 Selection Committees constituted by the respondent No.l. As a result of the interviews held by the Selection Committee a list consisting of the names of 212 candidates came to be prepared and out of that 147 candidates have been appointed. Names of petitioners No.l and 2 did not appear in the select list and this has impelled them to file writ petition before this Court seeking the relief of quashing the select list prepared by the Board and also for quashing the appointments made in excess of the advertised vacancies and further restraining the Board from making appointments in future on the basis of the select list of 212 candidates. Petitioner No.3 has joined the other two petitioners in making a grievance that by appointing candidates far in excess of the advertised vacancies the respondent- Board has frustrated his right for consideration for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer which became available subsequent to the advertisement. One of the pleas raised by the petitioners is that about 150 candidates were interviewed every day by each of the three Selection Committees and each candidate was given very little time for showing his worth at the time of interview. Another ground of challenge is that in all 50 marks were earmarked for Viva Voce and 50 marks for qualification and this by itself is sufficient to vitiate the entire selection. Yet another plea raised by the petitioners is that when candidates possessing higher qualifications are to be given preference qua others, the Board was under an obligation to first consider the candidature of those possessing higher qualifications and those having minimum qualifications should have been called for interview only in the event of nonavailability of suitable candidates from amongst those possessing higher qualifications and that by interviewing all the candidates simultaneously, the Board has deprived an opportunity of selection of those possessing higher qualifications.

(3.) In its reply the Board has challenged the locus standi of petitioner No.3 on the ground that he was not even qualified to be considered for selection because he passed Diploma only in the year 1992 whereas the last date fixed for the receipt of the applications was 4.12.1991. The respondent-Board has admitted the statement made in the petition regarding academic qualifications of petitioners No.1 and 2 but has raised a dispute regarding the quality of experience possessed by these petitioners. It has further been alleged that three zone-wise Selection Committees were constituted for the convenience of the candidates. Each of the Selection Committees interviewed about 69 candidates on each day and on an average each candidate was given 8 to 9 minutes for showing his performance in the interview. The respondent-Board has further stated that total marks for the purpose of interview were 30, out of which 15 were for viva voce, 5 for qualifications, 5 for experience and 5 for extra-curricular activities. The Board has also stated that after the issue of advertisement some more posts were made available due to new creation, promotions and retirements etc. Therefore, as against 32 advertised posts of general category 50 were appointed, as against 15 posts of Scheduled Castes 47 were appointed to clear the backlog and 15 candidates have been appointed against 6 advertised posts of Backward Classes. Similarly, against 9 advertised posts of Ex Servicemen 25 candidates have been appointed. It has also been stated that one physically handicapped candidate has also been appointed and in this manner a total of 138 candidates have been appointed. The Board has justified the appointment of 138 candidates as against 62 advertised posts on the ground that such a course of action is permissible as has been held by this Court in C.W.P. No.400 of 1993 (Varinder Singh versus state of Haryana and others) decided on 15.3.1993.