SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Himachal Pradesh University issued prospectus on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 for entrance test for admission to the courses of Multi Purpose Workers (hereinafter referred to as "MPW") male/females for the session 2004-2005. According to petitioner, respondents had decided to admit 300 trainees throughout the State of Himachal Pradesh purely on the basis of merit obtained by the eligible candidates in the entrance examination. In the prospectus it was laid down that the question papers for the entrance test would be of 100 MCQ (objective type) of two hours duration and the merit of the selected candidates shall be determined on the basis of marks obtained in the entrance test.

(2.) IT was made clear in the prospectus that the training would not guarantee Government service after completion of the training. 21st Competitive examination was slated for November, 2004, but before the competitive examination could take place, vide public notice dated 1st October, 2004, amendment was made in the prospectus. The said amendment provided that in addition to 100 marks for written examination, there would be 15 marks for interview and 10 additional marks for the candidates who have passed two examinations out of 5th, 8th, 10th and 10+2 from the schools situated in rural areas of the State. The distribution of seats as provided in para 1.3 of the prospectus was also omitted. As per clarification given by the respondents, only part of para 1.3 which provided for reservation on the basis of urban and rural areas was omitted. However, by means of subsequent instructions dated 7th March, 2005, it was decided to delete awarding of additional 10 marks to the candidates who may have passed two examinations out of 5th, 8th, 10th and 10+2 from the schools situated in the rural areas of the State and 15 marks which were to be awarded for viva-voce were also bifurcated i.e. 10 marks for academic qualification and 5 marks for viva-voce.

(3.) IN Rajiv Sharma's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court keeping into consideration the entire law on the subject, has held that the interview test is totally uncalled for and should not be conducted for the admission courses of the nature like Vaterinary Pharmacist, JBT etc. where young boys and girls whose personality has not fully developed are to be judged. The Division Bench declared test interview illegal, discriminatory and suffering from the vice of arbitrariness and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.