Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1955 (PNJ)

Sumitra v. State Of Haryana

2006-05-08

M.M.KUMAR, M.M.S.BEDI

body2006
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing the selection of 2977 persons made by the respondents on the post of J.B.T. teachers. Respondent No. 2, Haryana Staff Selection Commissioner (for brevity the HSSC) issued an advertisement No. 7/2004 inviting applications for 2977 posts of J.B.T. teachers for various districts in Haryana except Roluak, Sonepat and Jhajjar. Out of the total number of posts, 1461 posts were set apart for the general category. We are concerned with the general category in the instant petition. The last date of receipt of applications was 7.10.2004. The respondents have laid down the criterion for selection, which reads as under: HK_486 A_htm 2. On the basis of the interviews held from October, 2004 to December, 2004, HSSC declared the result on 16.12.2004. The last candidate in the general category had secured 47.03 marks whereas the petitioner has secured 44.97 marks. It is thus evident that the petitioner could not make the grade and her name did not figure even in the waiting list. It is claimed that the petitioner possess higher merit than those who have been selected. 3. In response to notice of motion, the respondents have filed reply wherein broad facts have bee., admitted with the further remarks that the last candidate belonging to general category had secured 47.03 marks whereas the petitioner had secured 44.97 marks. The break up of marks as awarded to the petitioner, according to the criterion, has also been disclosed in para 7 and the same are ?reflected below for facility of reference: HK_486 B_htm 4. Mr. Anand Sarup, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner who was working with Chandigarh Administration has acquired valuable experience since 19.9.2000 and no marks have been awarded for that experience whereas one mark as preference marks for experience has been awarded to Project Teacher. Learned Counsel has further argued that the petitioner has excellent academic record and marks awarded to her in the interview are on lower side as she has been awarded only 8 marks out of 25 marks. 5. Mr. Harish Rathee, learned State counsel has argued that the criterion as framed by the HSSC is not open to any legal infirmity because all factors have been given due representation. 5. Mr. Harish Rathee, learned State counsel has argued that the criterion as framed by the HSSC is not open to any legal infirmity because all factors have been given due representation. According to the learned Counsel, the afore-mentioned criterion (Annexure R/2/1) cannot be regarded arbitrary by any stretch of imagination. He has further submitted that allocation of 25 marks for the interview and the score of 8 marks by the petitioner cannot be subjected to judicial review because the Courts cannot act as court of appeal. With regard to award of one preference mark for the experience gained at Chandigarh, the learned Counsel has submitted that once the criterion has been adopted for extending one mark to those who have acquired experience as Project Teacher then there cannot be any deviation merely because the experience of the petitioner is from Chandigarh Administration. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel and perusing the record which have been produced before us we are of the view that this petition is liable to be dismissed for more than one reason. The criterion which is adopted by the respondents by allocating 25 marks out of 75 marks to the viva voce examination has been upheld by Hon ble the Supreme Court in the case of Anzar Ahmad v. State of Bihar (1994)1 S.C.C. 151. The Hon ble Supreme Court after detailed reference to the earlier judgments in the cases of Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, Ajav Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and other judgments has concluded that allocation of 50 per cent marks to the viva voce test and rest 50 percent marks to the academic qualifications do not suffer from any legal infirmity. The petitioner has been awarded 8 marks in the viva voce test out of 25 and we cannot sit as a court of appeal to review whether the marks have been given rightly or not. Therefore, we upheld the criterion as well as the award of 8 marks to the petitioner in the viva voce test. 7. The petitioner has been awarded 8 marks in the viva voce test out of 25 and we cannot sit as a court of appeal to review whether the marks have been given rightly or not. Therefore, we upheld the criterion as well as the award of 8 marks to the petitioner in the viva voce test. 7. The other contention of the learned Counsel that one mark should have been awarded to the petitioner on account of the experience gained by teaching at Chandigarh also does not require any detailed consideration because once the criterion admits awarding of one mark to Project Teacher then it is not open to the respondents to award one mark to everyone for experience of teaching irrespective of fact whether such an experience has been acquired in her capacity as Project Teacher or otherwise. It is admitted position that the petitioner has never been a Project Teacher and, therefore, she is not entitled to award of one mark. Even if one mark is awarded to the petitioner, the petitioner would still not make a grade as her marks would increase to 45.97 whereas the last candidate in the general category has obtained 47.03 marks. 8. We are further of the view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that she has failed to implead the selected candidates as party respondents as required by Hon ble the Supreme Court in the case of Arun Tiwari v. Zila Mansavi Sahahaik Sangh. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that score alone. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.