High Court ka ek or Judgment padiye jo ki HPSC k khilaf hai, jis me interview ki Video Recording k liye direction di huyi hai. Date of Judgment 1 July 2009. Yah hai Judgment :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.3445 of 2003
Date of decision: 01 .7.2009
Anu Radha
-----Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present:- Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate as amicus for the petitioner.
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Addl.A.G.Haryana for the State.
Mr. S.R.Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.
1. This petition seeks a direction to appoint the
petitioner to the post of Head Mistress, after quashing the
selection made by the Haryana Public Service Commission
(HPSC) to the said posts.
2. Case of the petitioner is that vide advertisement
dated 14.12.2001, Annexure P.14, the HPSC invited
applications for 140 posts of head Masters/Head Mistresses in
the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000. The requisite qualification
was Graduation, preference being given for Post Graduation
CWP No.3445 of 2003
with degree or diploma in Education and eight years’
experience of teaching in a Government school. The petitioner
was eligible and was allowed to appear in the screening test
held on 26.5.2002. She qualified and appeared for interview on
22.7.2002 but was not declared successful as per result
published on 7.9.2002. The petitioner served legal notice
dated 25.9.2002, Annexure P.19 seeking to know criteria
adopted in the interview and names of selected candidates but
vide reply dated 20.11.2002, Annexure P.20, she was informed
that the criteria was confidential and that documents of
selected candidates had already been forwarded to the
Government. Present petition was filed on 28.2.2003.
3. Contention raised in the petition is that the petitioner
had higher merit as compared to respondent No.3 who was one
of the selected candidates, as she was more qualified and her
percentage of marks was higher. Her experience was also
more. There is no transparency in the selection process and the
same was arbitrary.
4. In the reply filed on behalf of the State, it is stated
that the selected candidates stood appointed in the order of
their merit as recommended by the HPSC. The stand of the
2
CWP No.3445 of 2003
HPSC is that the selection is purely on merit and higher
qualification and more experience did not necessarily mean
higher merit of the petitioner.
5. On 3.11.2006, the petition came up before a learned
Single Judge who referred the matter to larger bench. The
order of reference is as under:-
“In deference to the order dated May 26, 2006,
Shri S.R.Hooda, learned counsel representing
respondent No.2, has produced the original
records containing the “selection criteria” as well
as “allocation of marks in interview”. The same
have been perused.
In view of the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anzar Ahmed v. State
of Bihar and others, 1994(1) RSJ 557, though it
appears that there could be no restriction to restrict
the marks for interview as no written test has been
held for the purpose of selection. The restriction
on allocation of marks for interview imposed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok
Kuamr Yadav and others v. State of Haryana
and others, 1985(4) SCC 417, thus, can be
distinguished.
Similarly the Commission, on the strength of
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr.
Keshav Ram pal v. UP Higher Education
3
CWP No.3445 of 2003
service Commission, 1986(1) SLR 681, can take
the plea that it was not obligated to sub divide the
marks for interview/viva voce under various
heads.
There are some subsequent judicial
precedents also wherein the selection based upon
the interview only, have been approved.
However, whether the Commission, while
laying down a selection criteria in which it
consciously decides to sub divide the marks in
interview/viva, but does not hold a written test for
the selection purposes, enjoys unquestionable
powers to determine such selection criteria and/or
what can be the scope of judicial review to test the
same on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution also appears to be of paramount
public importance.
As the aforesaid question does arise for
determination in the present case, I am of the
considered view that it would be more appropriate
if the same is answered by a larger Bench.
Consequently, let the papers of this case be
placed before Hon’ble the Acting chief Justice.”
6. The Commission produced the record as directed,
which was perused by the Court. On 22.5.2007, following
order was passed:-
4
CWP No.3445 of 2003
“Record has been produced before us. The same
was opened and after perusal, the same has been
sealed and returned.
Petitioner as well as counsel for the
respondents pray for time to argue on the
question whether the selection criteria adopted by
the Commission was in accordance with law or
not?”
7. Thus, the question for consideration is as to validity
of selection criteria laid down by the Public Service
Commission.
8. Since the petitioner was not represented by counsel,
we requested Sh. Puneet Bali, Advocate, who was present in
Court, to assist the Court as amicus. We have heard learned
amicus for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Commission
as also the learned counsel for the State.
41. Accordingly, we direct respondent No.2 to :
(i) ensure that proper record of interviews conducted
by it i.e. of questions and answers, is maintained in
appropriate form, such as video recording or
otherwise, as may be decided by it in all future
interviews; and
(ii) consider the service record of in service candidates
while considering their candidature for the appointment
to a post of Headmaster or any other like post in future
selections.
42. Subject to the directions, in para 41 above, this petition
is dismissed.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge
July 01, 2009 (Jitendra Chauhan)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.3445 of 2003
Date of decision: 01 .7.2009
Anu Radha
-----Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present:- Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate as amicus for the petitioner.
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Addl.A.G.Haryana for the State.
Mr. S.R.Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.
1. This petition seeks a direction to appoint the
petitioner to the post of Head Mistress, after quashing the
selection made by the Haryana Public Service Commission
(HPSC) to the said posts.
2. Case of the petitioner is that vide advertisement
dated 14.12.2001, Annexure P.14, the HPSC invited
applications for 140 posts of head Masters/Head Mistresses in
the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000. The requisite qualification
was Graduation, preference being given for Post Graduation
CWP No.3445 of 2003
with degree or diploma in Education and eight years’
experience of teaching in a Government school. The petitioner
was eligible and was allowed to appear in the screening test
held on 26.5.2002. She qualified and appeared for interview on
22.7.2002 but was not declared successful as per result
published on 7.9.2002. The petitioner served legal notice
dated 25.9.2002, Annexure P.19 seeking to know criteria
adopted in the interview and names of selected candidates but
vide reply dated 20.11.2002, Annexure P.20, she was informed
that the criteria was confidential and that documents of
selected candidates had already been forwarded to the
Government. Present petition was filed on 28.2.2003.
3. Contention raised in the petition is that the petitioner
had higher merit as compared to respondent No.3 who was one
of the selected candidates, as she was more qualified and her
percentage of marks was higher. Her experience was also
more. There is no transparency in the selection process and the
same was arbitrary.
4. In the reply filed on behalf of the State, it is stated
that the selected candidates stood appointed in the order of
their merit as recommended by the HPSC. The stand of the
2
CWP No.3445 of 2003
HPSC is that the selection is purely on merit and higher
qualification and more experience did not necessarily mean
higher merit of the petitioner.
5. On 3.11.2006, the petition came up before a learned
Single Judge who referred the matter to larger bench. The
order of reference is as under:-
“In deference to the order dated May 26, 2006,
Shri S.R.Hooda, learned counsel representing
respondent No.2, has produced the original
records containing the “selection criteria” as well
as “allocation of marks in interview”. The same
have been perused.
In view of the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anzar Ahmed v. State
of Bihar and others, 1994(1) RSJ 557, though it
appears that there could be no restriction to restrict
the marks for interview as no written test has been
held for the purpose of selection. The restriction
on allocation of marks for interview imposed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok
Kuamr Yadav and others v. State of Haryana
and others, 1985(4) SCC 417, thus, can be
distinguished.
Similarly the Commission, on the strength of
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr.
Keshav Ram pal v. UP Higher Education
3
CWP No.3445 of 2003
service Commission, 1986(1) SLR 681, can take
the plea that it was not obligated to sub divide the
marks for interview/viva voce under various
heads.
There are some subsequent judicial
precedents also wherein the selection based upon
the interview only, have been approved.
However, whether the Commission, while
laying down a selection criteria in which it
consciously decides to sub divide the marks in
interview/viva, but does not hold a written test for
the selection purposes, enjoys unquestionable
powers to determine such selection criteria and/or
what can be the scope of judicial review to test the
same on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution also appears to be of paramount
public importance.
As the aforesaid question does arise for
determination in the present case, I am of the
considered view that it would be more appropriate
if the same is answered by a larger Bench.
Consequently, let the papers of this case be
placed before Hon’ble the Acting chief Justice.”
6. The Commission produced the record as directed,
which was perused by the Court. On 22.5.2007, following
order was passed:-
4
CWP No.3445 of 2003
“Record has been produced before us. The same
was opened and after perusal, the same has been
sealed and returned.
Petitioner as well as counsel for the
respondents pray for time to argue on the
question whether the selection criteria adopted by
the Commission was in accordance with law or
not?”
7. Thus, the question for consideration is as to validity
of selection criteria laid down by the Public Service
Commission.
8. Since the petitioner was not represented by counsel,
we requested Sh. Puneet Bali, Advocate, who was present in
Court, to assist the Court as amicus. We have heard learned
amicus for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Commission
as also the learned counsel for the State.
41. Accordingly, we direct respondent No.2 to :
(i) ensure that proper record of interviews conducted
by it i.e. of questions and answers, is maintained in
appropriate form, such as video recording or
otherwise, as may be decided by it in all future
interviews; and
(ii) consider the service record of in service candidates
while considering their candidature for the appointment
to a post of Headmaster or any other like post in future
selections.
42. Subject to the directions, in para 41 above, this petition
is dismissed.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge
July 01, 2009 (Jitendra Chauhan)
No comments:
Post a Comment