Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 742 (MP)

Shivanand Shukla v. State of M. P.

2011-07-07

ALOK ARADHE, RAJENDRA MENON

body2011
ORDER 1. This petition was filed in the year 1991, wherein challenge is made to the recruitment process conducted by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Civil Judge Class II. 2. An advertisement was issued by the Public Service Commission being Advertisement No. 388/88, for appointment to the post in question. Petitioner, who claims to be a Post Graduate [i.e. MA in Sociology] has also passed the LLB Examination in the year 1986, applied for participating in the process of selection, as an Ex-service man. According to the Petitioner earlier he was employed as a signal-man in the Core of Signals and after his retirement from the Army, had appeared in the examination as an ex-service man. Records indicate that Petitioner served with the Indian Army between March 1977 to October 1980 and when this petition was filed in the year 1991, he was already 34 years of age. Be it as it may be, Petitioner participated in the process of selection and obtained 149 marks out of 200, in the written examination. According to the Petitioner in the general category, candidates who had obtained 148 marks have been selected after they were subjected to interview. However, no reservation or relaxation was granted to ex-military personnel like the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the selection and process of recruitment is vitiated as no reservation or relaxation was granted to persons like the Petitioner, who are ex-service men. 3. The second contention of the Petitioner is that in the matter of conducting interview, no guidelines or criteria was laid down and, therefore, the entire interview conducted is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 454 . It is argued by Shri A.P. Singh, learned Counsel, that Petitioner had fared well in the interview, but as no proper criteria were laid down for conducting the interview, the same is vitiated. Subsequently, the petition was amended and various other grounds were raised to point out that persons less meritorious than the Petitioner have been selected in various other categories like Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, but without granting any reservation or relaxation to ex-service men, the entire selection has been done which is unsustainable. It is further stated that, a Division Bench of this Court in Misc. It is further stated that, a Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Petition No. 1185/1989 (Dr. C.P. Kulashrestha v. Government of M.P. and Ors.), decided on 2.5.1990, had directed for revaluation of the answer-sheets of all candidates who had received more than 125 marks and the same principle has been followed in the present selection also and as the revaluation was not done in Petitioner's case and as no mark-sheet after revaluation was issued to the Petitioner as was done in the case of certain other candidates, it is argued that the entire selection is vitiated. 4. Respondents have filed their return and it is the case of Respondent No. 2, Public Service Commission, that under the Recruitment Rules there is no provision for reservation or relaxation in the criteria fixed for ex-service men and, therefore, it is argued that the contention of the Petitioner that there should be reservation or relaxation cannot be accepted. As far as grant of mark-sheet to the Petitioner and 'revaluation' in accordance to the Division Bench judgment is concerned, Respondents have pointed out that taking note of the fact that Petitioner had obtained more than 125 marks and keeping in view the directions issued in the case of Dr. C.P. Kulashrestha (supra), similar proceeding was undertaken in the matter and the answer-sheets of all such candidates, including the Petitioner, were re-valued and on such 'revaluation' in the case of two candidates with Roll No. 1375 and 6437 there was change in the marks. According to the Respondents after the 'revaluation' the result was again declared vide Annexure R/1 and as there was no change in the result after 'revaluation' as far as the present petition was concerned, it is said that there is no illegality. 5. Even though the Petitioner has tried to say that there has been no 'revaluation' and the contention of the Respondents is incorrect, therefore, the original records be called for, Shri K.S. Wadhwa, learned Counsel for the PSC, has produced before us certain enquiry report and documents ordering 'revaluation' of answer-sheets and the fact that there is no change in the result so far as the Petitioner is concerned. 6. 6. Shri A.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, tried to emphasize that in the present case the entire process of selection stands vitiated for the reason that there is no reservation or relaxation for ex-service men and the Petitioner, who had fared well in the examination, has been deprived of appointment even though he had obtained high marks i.e. 149 out of 200. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that the grounds raised by the Petitioner in this writ petition are mainly with regard to non-grant of reservation or relaxation to ex-service men, 'revaluation' of his answer-sheets not undertaken and his non-selection even though he had received high marks i.e.149/200. As far as these questions are concerned, reservation or relaxation for appointment to a post can be granted only if the recruitment rule permits for the same. In the present case, except for contending that there is no reservation or relaxation for ex-service men, Petitioner is unable to demonstrate before this Court by referring to the Recruitment Rules as to whether any reservation or relaxation to these category of persons i.e. ex-service men are contemplated in the Rules. In the absence of any provision being contemplated under the Recruitment Rules for reservation or relaxation, this Court cannot hold or grant the same to the Petitioner dehors the Recruitment Rules. Accordingly, contrary to the provisions of the Recruitment Rules the claim made for reservation and relaxation to ex-service men cannot be accepted. 8. As far as 'revaluation' of the answer-sheets as directed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. C.P. Kulashrestha (supra) is concerned, from the averments made by the Respondents in the return and on a perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that 'revaluation' was undertaken and in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the reply, the Respondents have clearly stated that in pursuance to the advertisement for judicial service examination 1988-89, Petitioner appeared in the examination and secured 149 marks whereas the last candidate who was called for interview secured 148 marks. It is further clear from the return filed by the Respondents that in pursuance to the order passed by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. It is further clear from the return filed by the Respondents that in pursuance to the order passed by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. C.P. Kulashrestha (supra) and the Indore Bench in the case of Talat Parveen v. State of M.P. and Ors. M.P. No. 736/1990, decided o 9.7.1990, 'revaluation' of answer-sheets of all candidates, who had received 125 marks and above, were ordered. It is seen from the return that all candidates were notified to submit an application for 'revaluation' alongwith a bank draft of ` 100/-on or before 28.7.1990 and in pursuance to the same, it is stated that 2605 candidates sought for 'revaluation' and the Respondents admit that Petitioner also submitted his claim for 'revaluation' and according to the Respondents variation were found in the answer-sheets of 382 candidates and out of them two candidates obtained more than 145 marks and, therefore, they were called for interview. Respondents have filed Annexure R2/1, the amended result published after such 'revaluation' on 12.1.1991. As far as Petitioner is concerned it is case of the Respondents that in the Petitioner's case there was no change in the result after such 'revaluation'. The affidavit filed by the Respondents and the documents filed in this regard are contained in Annexure R2/1 and the enquiry report produced before us for perusal dated 30.11.1990, indicate that the averments made in the return in this regard are correct. Except for making certain vague allegations Petitioner has not adduced any cogent material or evidence to disbelieve the aforesaid statement. There is no reason as to why the PSC will come out with a false claim. That being so, we are unable to accept the contention of the Petitioner. 'Revaluation' as ordered in the case of Dr. C.P. Kulashrestha (supra) having been undertaken and in the Petitioner's case as there being no change in the marks obtained, Petitioner cannot have any grievance. 9. It is clear from the records that Petitioner had obtained 149 marks in the written examination and as he had qualified to participate in the interview, he was called for interview, after interview he could not obtain the merit position, therefore, he was not selected either in the main list or in the supplementary list. 9. It is clear from the records that Petitioner had obtained 149 marks in the written examination and as he had qualified to participate in the interview, he was called for interview, after interview he could not obtain the merit position, therefore, he was not selected either in the main list or in the supplementary list. It is seen from the records that as Petitioner had obtained more than 145 marks in the written examination, he was also called for interview on the basis of the marks obtained in the written examination, but after the interview as he did not come within the merit criteria fixed, therefore, was not selected. It is clear from the records that the Petitioner has not made out any case for interference on the ground that the 'revaluation' was not done in accordance to the directions issued by the Division Bench, in the case of Dr. C.P. Kulashrestha (supra). 10. As far as the process of interview is concerned, even though during the course of hearing Shri A.P. Singh referring to the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) tried to emphasize that the interview and the selection undertaken was not fair and proper, this assertion of the Petitioner is nothing but a vague allegation. The interview is conducted by a Three Member Board, consisting of the Chairman of the PSC; an Expert in the Subject; and, a Sitting Judge of the High Court nominated by the Chief Justice and there is nothing to indicate that the interview board conducted its proceedings in a manner which warrants interference. 11. Except for making the contention that the interview was not fair, nothing specific in nature is brought to the notice of this Court on the basis of which it can be held that the selection process conducted by way of an interview after the written examination was not fair, warranting interference. It is also not the case of the Petitioner that exhorbitant marks were awarded in the interview or favouritism was shown to any candidate, only certain vague allegations are made by the Petitioner for challenging the interview. It is also not the case of the Petitioner that exhorbitant marks were awarded in the interview or favouritism was shown to any candidate, only certain vague allegations are made by the Petitioner for challenging the interview. Interview to the post is conducted by an Expert Committee as indicated hereinabove and, therefore, in the absence of any material available to show that the process of interview stood vitiated on any count merely on the basis of vague and unspecified allegations, interference on this count is not warranted. 12. Finally, Shri A.P. Singh, learned Counsel, tried to emphasize that after 'revaluation' mark-sheet were given to some candidates, but in the case of the Petitioner the mark-sheet after 'revaluation' was not granted. Merely because mark-sheet after 'revaluation' is not granted that would not vitiate the process of selection nor would it entitle the Petitioner to seek appointment to the post once it is found that he did not fare well in the interview and his name was not included in the merit list after the interview. Mere non-supply of the mark-sheet to the Petitioner has not caused any prejudice to the Petitioner nor does it in any manner, whatsoever, vitiate the selection. The Petitioner has not made out any case for interference on the grounds raised and finding the Respondents to have conducted the entire process of selection in accordance to law, this Court does not find it proper to interfere into the matter on the grounds raised. 13. Accordingly, finding no merit in the claim made by the Petitioner warranting consideration, the petition is dismissed.