Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 76 (HP)

AJAY SHARMA v. STATE OF H. P.

2004-04-22

A.K.GOEL, V.K.GUPTA

body2004
JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, C.J.—The learned Counsel for all the parties submitted and agreed that we should dispose of the writ petition at the motion hearing stage finally, without formally admitting it to hearing. Shorn of all unnecessary details, the subject matter of controversy in this petition revolves around the recommendation made by respondent No. 2, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Commission, for short) for appointment to the posts of Assistant Engineers in the department of Irrigation and Public Health in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Vide advertisement No. 11/2003 issued by the Commission, applications were invited on a prescribed form from eligible candidates for various posts including the above referred six number of posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) (Gazetted, Class-I). Out of these six posts, five were reserved for General Ex-servicemen and one for Scheduled Caste Ex-Serviceman (backlog). 2. Interviews were held on 6th, 7th and 8th January, 2004 by the Selection Committee of the Commission comprising of two members of the Commission, namely, respondent No. 4 Mr. PC. Katoch and respondent No. 3 Mr. V.K. Malik (being mentioned by us herein in order of their seniority in the Commission Service) and two experts, namely, Mr. M.C. Vakil and Mr.S.K. Bhatnagar. The Commission selected six candidates and accordingly sent a recommendation to the Government for their appointment in the order of merit as shown hereinbelow:— 1. Rajesh Kumar 2. Jitinder Kumar Garg 3. Ajay Sharma 4. Bhushan Lal Sharma 5. Devinder Singh 6. Anupam Paul 3. Evidently petitioners Ajay Sharma and Roshan Lal Sharma also figure in the list of aforesaid six recommendees. 4. It appears that some dispute, discrepancy and differences arose between respondent No. 4 on the one hand and respondent No. 3 on the other with respect to the authenticity and correctness of the aforesaid list of selectees (recommendees). Respondent No. 3s contention was that instead of the names recommended by the Commission (the aforesaid six names), the following persons were actually selected by the Selection Committee of the Commission and based on such selection, these (following) names accordingly should have been recommended:— 1. Sunil Sharma 2. Sunil Sood 3. Sushil Chand 4. Rajesh Kumar 5. Bhushan Lal Sharma 6. Anand Blouria 7. Sanjay Kumar 5. The two experts, namely, Mr. H.C. Vakil and Mr. Sunil Sharma 2. Sunil Sood 3. Sushil Chand 4. Rajesh Kumar 5. Bhushan Lal Sharma 6. Anand Blouria 7. Sanjay Kumar 5. The two experts, namely, Mr. H.C. Vakil and Mr. S.K. Bhatnagar also appear to have subscribed to the same view as of respondent No. 3 to the effect that the above referred seven persons were indeed selected and that their names should have been recommended for appointment to the Government, instead of the six names actually recommended by the Commission. For our purposes in this case, for facility of our reference, we shall be referring to the list of six persons actually recommended by the Commission comprising of Rajesh Kumar and five others as List A and the list of seven persons, respondent No. 3 and the two experts alleged had actually been selected, starting with Sunil Sharma and six others as list B. 6. The controversy arose in the following backdrop. 7. On 12th January, 2004, respondent No. 3 wrote a secret note to respondent No. 5 bringing to his notice his version about the selection of the candidates and pointing out the differences and the discrepancies between his version and the list ultimately sent by the Commission to the Government for approval. Certain allegations were levelled in this note by respondent No. 3 in which it was also stated that he was shocked to find that the entire result as had been approved by all the Members of the Selection Board was later on changed and a false and fabricated Result Sheet had been prepared. He in this note specifically accused respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 4 of exerting pressure and undue influence on him to sign the Result Sheet, which he refused as, according to him the rightful selection of meritorious candidates with better educational qualifications etc. had been ignored and a false and fabricated Select List had been prepared. In the ultimate analysis, after levelling some more allegations, he suggested that the Commission should recommend to the Government to order an independent enquiry into the wrongful selection of the candidates, preparation of false and fabricated Result Sheet and not to implement the recommendation already sent by the Commission to the Government. He also informed respondent No. 5 that, in future he would not associate himself with such dubious selection process, until an independent enquiry cleared the matter. 8. He also informed respondent No. 5 that, in future he would not associate himself with such dubious selection process, until an independent enquiry cleared the matter. 8. On 30th January, 2004, Shri B.S. Thind, IPS, Additional Director General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Shimla sent a communication to Shri Onkar Sharma, IAS, Secretary, H.P.P.S.C, Shimla which called for certain information from the Commission alongwith the statements of the concerned officers, Members, officials of the Board/Commission and copies of relevant records etc. etc. For ready reference, we reproduce hereinbelow the text of the aforesaid communication which reads thus: "A SOURCE REPORT has been received by the State CID that the recommendations made by the board of the Commission for the selection to the posts of Assistant Engineers in I&PH Department during this month have not been accepted by the Presiding Officer and the Public Service Commission and instead of candidates recommended by the board, other candidates have been recommended by the Commission for appointment to the Government. In order to arrive at a just conclusion, it has become essential to go through the regulations provided for the constitution of selection committee, regulation for recording the proceedings of selection committee, regulations providing for placing the recommendations of the committee before the Chairman of HPPSC and regulations for its recommendations to the Government. The photo copies of relevant records qua selection etc. may also be handed over to the bearer of this letter, Inspector Verinder Kalia of C.I.D., Crime Branch. I shall be highly obliged and grateful if the requisite information along with the statements of the concerned Officers, Members, Officials of the Board/Commission and copies of relevant records are given at the earliest.” 9. On 7th February, 2004, Shri Onkar Sharma, IAS, Secretary of the Commission wrote his D.O. No.l-PA/Secy/PSC-2004-17 of the same date informing Shri Thind that these documents being "top secret" could not be supplied without the permission of the Commission, since the Commission being a constitutional body in terms of Article 320 of the Constitution, was functioning independently and that in any case the matter was already under the consideration of the Commission. The text of this letter is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: "Subject: Request to supply of photocopies of HPPSC Regulation and Rules of Business. The text of this letter is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: "Subject: Request to supply of photocopies of HPPSC Regulation and Rules of Business. Dear Sir, Kindly refer to your D.O. No. 2616 dated 30.1.2004 on the above cited subject and to inform you in this context that these documents being top secret and therefore cannot be supplied without the permission of the Commission. The Public Service Commission is a Constitutional Body and according to Article 320 of the Constitution of India, its functioning is independent/autonomous. This matter is already under the consideration of the Commission and as and when a decision is arrived at, the same will be conveyed to you accordingly." 10. During the course of the hearing, we were shown a 10 column Interview Sheet which is in every case accompanied by a vertically columnised Interview Form, which is required to be signed by each Member of the Interview Board and we see that with respect to the interviews held on 6th, 7th and 8th January, 2004, in which respondents No. 3 and 4 as Members of the Commission and Mr. M.C. Vakil and Mr. S.K. Bhatnagar as experts had participated, and in that capacity, all these four persons had signed the Interview Forms at the end of each days interview. Undoubtedly, each Interview Sheet comprising of 10 columns has been signed only by the Chairman of the Interview Board, (respondent No. 4) in his capacity as the senior of the two Members of the Commission (the other Member being respondent No. 3). The allegation actually of respondent No. 3 and the two experts is that respondent No. 4 interpolated this 10 column Interview Sheet and changed it later on to include the names of selectees/recommendees other than those who had been selected by Interview Board comprising of the aforesaid four Members. We have been clearly informed at the Bar and we have no reason to disbelieve, that the private sheet maintained by respondent No. 3 (which was shown to us in the Court by Shri D.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for this respondent) may be his personal document (prepared/maintained by him in his personal capacity) but it has not been issued to him by the Commission in the course of interview as per the Rules of Business of the Commission. As per the Rules of Business of the Commission, the Interview Sheet comprising of 10 column is required to be signed by the Chairperson of the Interview Board alone, and it is not required to be signed by the other Members comprising the Board, be they the Members of the Commission or outside experts. As per the Rules of Business and as per even the entries in the columns in the Interview Form, the very purpose of signing the Interview Form by everyone, who was constituting the Selection Board is that the Interview Form is signed after the Members have seen the 10 column Interview Sheet duly filled in and in token of all the 10 columns having been already duly filled in, they affix their signatures on the Interview Form. It is, therefore, expected that persons of high eminence, stature, calibre, standing, seniority and position as these four have been, they would be signing the Interview Form only after ensuring that they have seen the 10 column Interview Sheet duly (already) filled in all respects and duly signed by the Chairperson of the Interview Board. If these three persons want us to believe that they just put/affixed their signatures on the Interview Form in the same manner as putting up their thumb impressions, without bothering to note or finding out whether the accompanying 10 column Interview Sheet had or had not been duly filled in or had not been signed, it was indeed a pity. Each 10 column Interview Sheet is having a machine number and is properly issued and duly accounted for. If, therefore, 10 column Interview Sheet was duly filled in and had been signed by respondent No. 4 before the four persons signed the accompanying Interview Form, there was no scope of it being changed later on and there was no scope of it being interpolated. We also did not see any interpolation on the face of the Interview Sheet. 11. He have before us a set of allegations and counter allegations and we have before us the doubts and suspicions raised with respect to the authenticity of the select list ultimately approved by the Commission and linked with that, the correctness of the recommendation made by the Commission, recommending six names (as per List A ) for appointment as Assistant Engineers. Undoubtedly in so far as the allegations and counter allegations are concerned, we have before us the version of respondent No. 4, duly supported by the version put forth by respondent No. 5 as well as the official version of the Commission, through the affidavit of its Secretary and we have before us the allegation of respondent No. 3, supported by the two letters allegedly written by the two experts, namely, Mr. Vakil and Mr. Bhatnagar, who are neither parties before us (and we did not justifiably implead them as such and they have thus not filed their affidavits with respect to the subject matter of this petition). Numbers, on either side, necessarily do not determine the veracity, truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations or counter allegations. At one time, we had contemplated having this matter enquired into by an outside agency, but when we saw the entire record, we felt that as far as the existing Rules of Business of the Commission are contained, in the face of these Rules, an outside agency including an expert could not have done anything more than what we have been able to find out because perhaps no one can be in a position to come to a definite conclusion, on the basis of the available record/material that the allegations of respondent No. 3 with respect to the correctness of the selection are well founded (or for that matter, these are unfounded). It is to say the least, one against another. Which one to believe and which one to disbelieve? Perhaps the only villain in this case is the procedure adopted by the Commission, because the patent defect in the procedure ultimately led to this controversy. If in the 10 column Interview Sheet of the Board the signatures of all the participants of the Interview Board had been there, such like controversy could not have at all arisen. 12. In Chapter V of the Rules of Business of the Commission, it is provided that a Member of the Commission shall ordinarily preside over the Interview Boards set up for selection of candidates and such Member shall act as the Chairman of the Interview Board and in case the Interview Board comprises of more than one Member of the Commission, the senior most Member shall act as the Chairman of the Interview Board. In Chapter V there is also a stipulation that the expert Advisors who are called upon to assist the Commission during the Interviews shall not record their remarks or impressions regarding the candidates being interviewed in writing, unless specifically directed by the Chairman of the Interview Board to do so. Decision regarding the suitability or otherwise of the candidates being interviewed as well as their final position in the merit list of selected candidates shall be the sole responsibility of the Chairman of the Interview Board. The above referred provisions as occurring in Chapter V of the Rules are quoted verbatim hereinbelow for our ready reference :— "(iii)A Member of the Commission shall ordinarily preside over the Interview Boards set up for selection of candidates through either of the methods described in para-i above, and such Member shall act as the Chairman of the Interview Board; provided that, where more than one Member set on the same Interview Board, the Senior most Member shall act as Chairman of the Board, except in cases where the Chairman of the Commission himself, sits on the Interview Board alongwith one or more Members, and in case of other Boards constituted without a Member, the nominee of the Chairman shall preside. (iv) The Expert Advisers as understood within the scope of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Payment of Remuneration to Advisers) Rules, 1971, who are called upon to assist the Commission during interviews (including viva voce) shall not record their remarks or impressions regarding the candidates being interviewed, in writing, unless specifically directed by the Chairman of the Interview Board to do so. The decision regarding the suitability or otherwise of the candidates being interviewed as well as their final positions in the merit or merit list of selected candidates shall be the sole responsibility of the Chairman of the Interview Board, and the task of the Expert Advisers will be to help him in taking these decisions. However the Expert(s)/Departmental Representative(s) after the Interview shall sign the Form containing their names and other particulars appended to the Interview Sheet(s) in token of their having participated in the deliberations of the Interview Board.” 13. However the Expert(s)/Departmental Representative(s) after the Interview shall sign the Form containing their names and other particulars appended to the Interview Sheet(s) in token of their having participated in the deliberations of the Interview Board.” 13. In the present times, what with all the controversies arising day in and day out about the functioning of the Institutions and the clouds that are cast about the fairness of the selection procedures and systems, what with the question papers being leaked day in and day out, and the results being tampered with every now and then all over the country, the Commission should have ensured that the authenticity of the 10 column Interview Sheet should best have been maintained and preserved by recording on it the signatures if all the participants of the Interview Board so that no one from out of the Interview Board would have been in a position later on, to complain of any discrepancy or to allege any malpractice or interpolation. Since the social value systems have in recent times changed for the worse, and they have gone down considerably, leaving the authenticity of such a vital document as the 10 column Interview Sheet in the exclusive preserve of just one individual (from out of a group comprising four persons) perhaps would be asking for too much and we see no reason as to why, when four persons constitute an Interview Board, only one of them was permitted/made to sign the Interview Sheet. It is in this background that we shall propose in this judgment to make some suggestions, issue some binding directions, till the Rules of Business are appropriately re-framed on the lines to be indicated by us. But before we do that, we have to notice that in the affidavits filed by respondents No. 3, 4 and 5, various personal allegations have been levelled against one another or against persons who are not parties before us in this petition, including the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh. We feel that it shall not be out of place to take notice of these affidavits, even though in the ultimate analysis we would come to the conclusion that for the final disposal of the issue, involved in this case the allegations in these affidavits may not be of any relevance. We feel that it shall not be out of place to take notice of these affidavits, even though in the ultimate analysis we would come to the conclusion that for the final disposal of the issue, involved in this case the allegations in these affidavits may not be of any relevance. The view that we thus ultimately propose to take in this case and the order that we ultimately, therefore, based on that view propose to pass (thus accordingly in the end disposing of the petition based on such order), we feel convinced that it would neither be desirable for us to take note of such allegations of personal nature contained in the said affidavits nor shall it be practicable or feasible for us to examine the veracity or truthfulness of these allegations. The truthfulness or the falsity of the allegations in the ultimate analysis perhaps would also have no bearing to the outcome of this case. We, therefore, do not wish to go into such unsavoury aspects of this case except of course to disapprove the manner in which respondent No. 3 tried to associate the State Government through its Chief Secretary with respect to the internal affairs of the Commission. Whether or not, respondent No. 1 was concerned, justly, earnestly and sincerely with the goings on in the Commission and, therefore, he associated the State Government with respect to the details of such goings on based on his bona fide intentions, or he did it otherwise, are not matters for our concern, but we would be shirking in our responsibility if we do not make a categorical observation that the Commission is a wholly autonomous Institution, as per the Scheme of Chapter II of Part XIV of the Constitution of India and enjoys a special status in the social annals of our country. Autonomous Institutions such as a Public Service Commission inspire a lot of respect and confidence amongst the general masses. Purposely the Constitution makers have made specific provisions, in the Constitution, such as Article 320, ensuring the autonomous status of a Public Service Commission and also its independent functioning, free from any type of executive influence and also, in the same spirit, and for achieving the same purpose, have made provisions, practically free from any executive interference, for an independent and secure tenure of the Office of the Members of the Commission. Therefore, in our view, for respondent No. 3 directly approaching the State Government with respect to the internal matters of the Commission, howsoever justified he might have been in his thinking process, (also in our considered opinion) is not something which the Constitution makers had envisaged and which the Scheme of Chapter II of Part XIV of the Constitution perhaps also envisaged. Yes, if a Member strongly felt that a case was made out for the matter being referred to the State Government, or for that matter to any other agency such as the police, such a Member could have requested the Chairman of the Commission to have made a reference to the Government or to such other agency because, bodies like the Commission act (in normal course) collectively and as far as possible, on the basis of the consensus arrived at jointly or act through their Heads and in the present case the Chairperson is the Head of the Commission. Bypassing the Chairperson, ignoring the rule of collective functioning, and in disregard to the need for adopting consensual approach, respondent No. 3 directly approaching the State Government was a situation which should best have been avoided. We wish to make no further comments on this aspect of the matter. 14. Why did the Additional Director General of Police (CID) had to write to the Commission, even through its Secretary, for seeking certain information is a matter which is beyond our comprehension. As observed earlier in this judgment, the Commission is an autonomous Institution having an independent character of its own and it is purposely kept free from any executive influence so as to ensure its impartial and independent functioning, based on merit, objectivity and fair play. Yes, a situation in which an FIR had been lodged would have been an altogether different circumstance, in which case, the Chairperson and the Members of the Commission and all its staff members, including its Secretary not being immune from law, it would have been wholly justified on the part of the police to initiate action in accordance with the provisions of law, including the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to take it to its logical conclusion. However, in the absence of any registration of a case or the lodging of an FIR, in our considered opinion, the Additional Director General of Police (CID) transgressed his limits and exceeded his jurisdiction in asking for the information from the Secretary of the Commission in the manner in which it was done vide communication D.O. No.2616 dated 30.1.2004. We fully approve of the conduct of the Secretary in disregarding this communication and not supplying the information sought for. 15. We shall be failing in our duty if we ignore taking note of the fact of the two experts, Shri M.C. Vakil and Shri S.K. Bhatnagar having allegedly put on record, in writing, the discrepant facts with respect to the selection of candidates and when we say "discrepant7, we mean as these are in comparison to the versions put by the Commission as well as respondents No. 4 and 5. The two communications, one dated 13.1.2004 from Shri M.C. Vakil and the other dated 14.1.2004 from Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, being relevant for our purposes are required to be reproduced verbatim and we quote: The written version of Shri M.C. Vakil (verbatim) "Subject : Selection of candidates for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in I&PH Dep. H.P. The interviews for the above posts were held on 6th, 7th and 8th January, 2004. The Interview board comprised of Shri P.C. Katoch IAS (Retd), Shri V.K. Malik IPS (Retd), Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Chief Engineer I&PH, and myself as Expert. Out of 21 candidates interviewed, I had proposed selection of following in order of merit. Sr. No. Roll No. Name Grading 1. 15 Sunil Sharma A M Tech. from IIT Kanpur. 2. 16 Sunil Sood B++ 3. 17 Sushil Chand B+ 4. 3 Rajesh Kumar B+ 5. 7 Bhushan Lal Sharma B+ 6. 9 Anand Blouria B+ 7. 21 Sanjay Kumar B+ Sd/- (M.C.Vakil) Called ae Expert to assist the Commission. (13.1.2004) Cottage No.l2-A Kelston Colony Shimla-171001 Tel. No. 280-2725" The written version of Shri S.K. Bhatnagar (verbatim). "Sub : Wrong selection of candidates for the post of A.E. (Civil) in I&PH Deptt. H.P. by HPPSC. Interview for the above cited post were held by HPPSC w.e.f. 6th to 8th January, 2004 wherein I was departmental expert. (13.1.2004) Cottage No.l2-A Kelston Colony Shimla-171001 Tel. No. 280-2725" The written version of Shri S.K. Bhatnagar (verbatim). "Sub : Wrong selection of candidates for the post of A.E. (Civil) in I&PH Deptt. H.P. by HPPSC. Interview for the above cited post were held by HPPSC w.e.f. 6th to 8th January, 2004 wherein I was departmental expert. It is noticed that the candidates with higher merit, better experience and better performed in interview and with better understanding/clarity of the subject matter of the department and also in general have been ignored and those far below in merit have been wrongly selected in spite of appropriate recommendations given by members in respect of Roll Nos. 9, 15, 16, 17 and 21. Sd/- 14.L2004 S.K. Bhatnagar, C.E. IPH, U.S. Club, Shimla-1." Who was the addressee of these communications? In what context and in which background did these communications come to be recorded and at whose instance? These are the questions about which we did not find any answers even though the above referred two documents were seen by us in the file given to us by Shri Mattewal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. Apparently, even though the file did not bear any caption, these documents presumably are contained in the file of Additional Director General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department. Were these documents written by these two persons at the behest of the Police or were these written by them on their own volition, has not been borne out from the record. These documents admittedly, however, have not been addressed to any person. What is the authenticity of these documents and what is the veracity of their contents is for anybody to guess but we must clearly observe that being the experts appointed by the Commission, it was perhaps not desirable for these two persons to have acted in the manner they did by placing on record their versions of selection under the aforesaid circumstances and in the aforesaid fashion. Who invited them to give their versions, at the risk of repetition, is an issue the knowledge of which perhaps would have made us more comfortable in our assessment of the authenticity and veracity of the version of these two persons but then that vital piece of information is neither forthcoming from the pleadings of the parties nor from the perusal of the record. 16. 16. Before parting we must hasten to observe that in this case we have, as far as possible refrained from commenting upon the conduct of the Chairperson or the Members of the Commission, except with respect to the aspect of respondent No. 3 in associating the State Government which we felt did call for our comments because we sincerely felt concerned about upholding the independence, dignity and the high status of the Commission, but otherwise we have not commented upon the conduct of the Chairperson or the Members of the Commission and rightly so because it did not fall for our consideration in this case. Even with respect to respondent No. 3, the comments that we made about his associating the State Government in the correspondence that he addressed to the Chairperson of the Commission should not be construed adverse to him in any manner because there is a strong possibility of respondent No. 3 acting in a bona fide manner, influenced perhaps as he might have been, by the consideration of his sincerity of purpose. We only wished that in the process he would have evolved and charted a course of action and thus acted in a manner which would not have compromised with the independence of the Commission, and at the same time also achieved the desired result. Our comments qua respondent No. 3, therefore, should be taken, treated and understood in that perspective. 17. Our comments qua respondent No. 3, therefore, should be taken, treated and understood in that perspective. 17. In the ultimate analysis, based on the aforesaid reasoning and in the light of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since very strong doubts have been cast about the very authenticity of the entire selection process, even though in the course of this judgment we have observed that nothing tangible was brought to our notice convincingly whereby we could draw any inference that the 10 column Interview Sheets were changed, altered, interpolated, or replaced, or that they had not been filled in, each day before the Members of the Interview Board put their signatures in the Interview Formal yet to maintain the highest standards of probity in public life and following the ages old adage that justice should not only be done but should appear to have been done, according to us the best course of action that we should adopt in this case is to direct that the Commission should undertake fresh selection process in the sense that all the eligible candidates who had submitted their applications pursuant to Advertisement in question should be re-interviewed. While adopting this course of action we are not unmindful of the candidates being burdened with having to face the brunt of a fresh selection process all over again, but then we also have to convincingly note that a mere inclusion in the Select List by itself creates no right in favour of the selectees and should not be equated at par with the right to appointment or recruitment. Selection by itself cannot be mistaken for appointment and, therefore, if we find that public interest demands that the selection process should be undertaken all over again, we should have no hesitation in adopting that course of action. Between various alternative courses of action that we had in mind we thought that it would be the safest course of action, especially since it would not adversely or prejudicially affect the interests of the eligible candidates. It would instead advance and promote the public interest and inspire more and more confidence in the fairness and objectivity of the selection process. 18. It would instead advance and promote the public interest and inspire more and more confidence in the fairness and objectivity of the selection process. 18. As has been observed, even though we did not find any tangible evidence of any interpolation, two factors which did influence us in deciding that fresh selection process should be undertaken are, firstly the fact that the 10 column Interview Sheet was not indeed signed by all the four Members of the Interview Board (whatever the consequence may have been) and secondly, the allegation that persons with higher academic qualifications and better experience were ignored and those recommended for selection perhaps did not match the ignored candidates meritwise. As far as this particular aspect of higher qualification and/or better experience is concerned, we are only making a passing reference and we should not be construed to have expressed any opinion on this aspect of the matter because that should be best left to be decided by the Interview Board, as and when fresh selection process takes place, based as it would be on merit, objectivity and suitability, by adoption of prescribed norms for a fair selection. 19. In the result, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of and the following directions are hereby issued :— 1. Respondent No. 2 shall undertake fresh selection process but by limiting the consideration to the eligible candidates, who had applied pursuant to the Advertisement in question. Accordingly, therefore, the Recommendation, if any, sent by the Commission to the Government, recommending six names as per List A is quashed and set aside. The Commission/Government of Himachal Pradesh shall consider effectively the question of amending the Rules of Business of the Commission so as to ensure that effective steps are taken in future with a view to allaying all apprehensions and plugging all loop-holes in as much as, in future no one is allowed to accuse any one of any interpolation and that a foolproof mechanism is built so that there is no scope for any interpolation or any tampering of the documents. Till that is done, we direct as under.— (i) The 10 column Interview Sheet shall be filled in, each day, by the Chairperson of the Interview Board, but, even though it is filled in by the Chairperson of the Interview Board, each such 10 column Interview Sheet shall be signed by all the Members of the Board, including the experts even if they are not the Members of the Commission. The accompanying Interview Form, as here to before, has to be signed by all these persons, but only after they have put their signatures on the 10 column Interview Sheet. The accompanying Interview Form shall contain an endorsement by way of an addition of a fresh column that the persons comprising the Board, the Members of the Commission as well as the experts-non-Members, have all signed the interview form in token of their having seen and approved and signed, the accompanying 10 column Interview Sheet and that they have signed this Form after they have seen the Interview Sheet duly complete in all respects and satisfied themselves about its correctness. The Interview Form thus signed and the Interview Sheet thus signed by all the Members comprising the Board shall on the same day be sealed by an officer of the Commission, either the Secretary of the Commission or an Officer lower in rank to Secretary duly nominated by the Chairperson of the Commission, in the presence of all these Members comprising the Interview Board, and all such Forms and Sheets should be kept in the safe custody of the Secretary of the Commission, to be acted upon and used, as and when required. 20. Petition disposed of. No order as to costs. CMPs Nos. 371 and 373 of 2004. 21. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, both the applications shall stand disposed of. -