Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2154 (PNJ)

Savita Singh v. State Of Haryana

2010-07-29

RANJIT SINGH

body2010
Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. Initially, the petitioner had filed this writ petition with a prayer for quashing the written examination held for appointment to the post of Assistant Treasury Officer conducted by respondent-Haryana Staff Selection Commission (for short "Commission") on 17.12.2006. The plea was that the said examination has been conducted in violation of the Haryana Finance Department Treasuries (Group B) Service Rules, 1980 (for short, "the Rules"), as amended in 1982. During the pendency of the petition, certain appointments were made on the basis of the examinations, which was conducted and is under challenge. The petitioner, therefore, impleaded the selected candidates as respondents but without amending the prayer clause of the writ petition to make a prayer for quashing the selection. 2. The facts pleaded in writ petition, noticed in brief, are that Haryana Staff Selection Commission (respondent No.2) advertised 9 posts of Assistant Treasury Officer on 14.9.2006. The petitioner had applied for the said posts. The appointment to the posts is governed by Rule 9 of the Rules. Rule 9(3) provides that appointment by direct recruitment to the service shall be made through a competitive examination to be held by the Commission. The detailed syllabus is appended in appendix-F to the Rules. This appendix provides scheme of the examination giving duration of each examination as well as the marks that each paper/subject shall carry, which are three in number. As per the petitioner, last examination prior to the present advertisement was conducted strictly as per the syllabus and the pattern as given in the Rules. The petitioner had then appeared in the examination held for the post in 20Q4 but states that she missed the selection by a whisker. She had secured 115 marks whereas the last candidate selected and called for interview had secured 120 marks. The petitioner, thus, claims that she WaS well prepared and started preparation for the examination then under contemplation pursuant to the advertisement issued. 3. The petitioner would refer to appendix-F to point out that three papers are provided in the Rules and these are Pricis writing, Noting and Drafting (paper 1), General Knowledge (paper 2) and Government Accounts (paper-3). As per the rules, each paper carries 100 marks and is of 3 hours duration. 33 marks are needed for passing the examination. 3. The petitioner would refer to appendix-F to point out that three papers are provided in the Rules and these are Pricis writing, Noting and Drafting (paper 1), General Knowledge (paper 2) and Government Accounts (paper-3). As per the rules, each paper carries 100 marks and is of 3 hours duration. 33 marks are needed for passing the examination. The appointment by direct recruitment to the service is to be made through a competitive examination to be held by the Commission. 4. On 17.12.2006, the petitioner appeared for written examination and found that whole pattern of the examination stood changed. Instead of three descriptive/subjective type papers, each of which was required to be of three hours duration carrying 100 marks, only one paper of 200 marks having one hour fifteen minutes duration was held. litis paper contained 100 multiple choice questions. The grievance is that most of the questions were from the third paper and that the first paper i.e. Pricis Writing, Noting and Drafting was altogether ignored. As per the petitioner, this was done to give undue advantage to certain candidates who could not have otherwise qualified in the examination if the same had been held as per the prescribed format. Even the minimum pass marks were changed to 50%, which is termed as arbitrary and without any reason or purpose. 5. Replies on behalf of the official respondents as well as newly added private respondents have been filed. In its reply filed, the Commission would refer to the case of Sanjeev Kumar and others v. Government of NCT, Delhi,1 2006 (2) RSJ 595 and Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University, 2 2002 Lab.IC 566 to urge that it is neither wise nor appropriate for the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to go into the question paper set by the Board and to decide whether the questions are within or outside the syllabus. The respondent-Commission would, thus, plead that the writ petition as formulated is not maintainable. 6. It is then pointed out that Sub rule (3) of Rule 9 was amended from time to time and the competitive examination is required to be conducted covering the field of General Knowledge, English, Hindi and Government Accounts. In this regard, the Commission had also issued a public notice on 1.12.2006 incorporating the aforesaid syllabus for written examination to be held on 17.12.2006. In this regard, the Commission had also issued a public notice on 1.12.2006 incorporating the aforesaid syllabus for written examination to be held on 17.12.2006. The petitioner accordingly had appeared in the said examination but could not qualify the said test for shortlisting/interview. In this regard, reference is made to Chander Parkash Tiwari v. Shakuntla Shukla, 3 2002 (3) RSJ 507 and Devki Nandan Sharma v. State of Haryana & Ors. 4 2002 (1) RSJ 64, where it is held that if a candidate appears and participate in the selection process, then he can not turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview or examination was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process. It is, thus, submitted that the grievance of the petitioner now made would neither be valid nor justified. It was then pointed out that the selection had already been finalised, when the selected candidates perhaps were impleaded. 7. Somewhat similar is the plea raised by the private respondents, who would also urge that the petitioner would have no locus to challenge the selection, as she had competed and lost. It is pointed out that number of candidates called for interview were three times the number of posts advertised. Since the petitioner could not come in competitive merit on this basis, she was not called for interview. Private respondents would also make reference to the public notice published in the newspaper on 1.12.2006 clearly giving out that examination for the post of Assistant Treasury Officer comprising 100 multiple choice questions, each question carrying two marks with 25 marks for interview, would be held. It is, thus, stated that the petitioner very well knew about this factual position and can not now make a grievance about the same after participating in the process. 8. The private respondents in their reply have justified the reasons for changing the pattern of examination, which is the main grievance raised in the writ petition. Reference is made to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court to point out that the marks for interview can not exceed more than 15%. It is accordingly pointed out that keeping 100 marks for interview, when 300 marks were allotted to written examination as per Rules, was not in conformity with the law laid down in various decisions by the Supreme Court. It is accordingly pointed out that keeping 100 marks for interview, when 300 marks were allotted to written examination as per Rules, was not in conformity with the law laid down in various decisions by the Supreme Court. The statutory rules empowered the Staff Selection Commission to adopt its own criteria and, thus, respondent No.2-Commission had decided to conduct the examination of 200 marks keeping 25 marks for interview. The justification for the same is to comply with the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court. This aspect could not be disputed by the counsel for the petitioner in any manner. It is also justly pointed out that the grievance is not that the questions were out of the syllabus but is that the examination was not strictly held as per the Rules. The reason for this change has been explained above and so to the fact that there was enough advance notice in this regard by way of publication in the newspaper. 9. In view of the stand as noticed above, it is now to be seen if any cause for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out or not. Though the petitioner has alleged in the petition that this method of examination was changed to help certain candidates but neither any argument was advanced in this regard at the time of hearing of the case nor this is substantiated in any manner. The counsel for the petitioner also could not dispute the reasoning advanced in the stand taken by the parties in regard to the legal position governing the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere in such like matters or on the ground that the change was needed to bring the system of examination in tune with the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court. Reference here may be made to the decision in the case of Tariq Islam and Sanjeev Kumar (supra), where it has been viewed that it is neither wise nor appropriate for the Court to go into the aspect of question paper set to find if it is within or outside the syllabus. The reasoning and justification given in the reply is sound one and appears to be just and fair. No one was apparently taken by surprise. The respondents had made efforts to publicize the change through a public notice. The reasoning and justification given in the reply is sound one and appears to be just and fair. No one was apparently taken by surprise. The respondents had made efforts to publicize the change through a public notice. The grievance of the petitioner that she was taken by surprise is not justified. There is also a substance in the submission made by the respondents that having participated in the process, it would not be fair and appropriate for the petitioner to now challenge the mode of examination, once she has not successful. 10. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.