RAM AVTAR PATWARI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANAAND ORS

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 469

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN

Case summary

RAM AVTAR PATWARI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANAAND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

;- RAM AVTAR PATWARI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANAAND ORS. SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D. K. JAIN,JJ. ] . r-- Service Law: Appointmentlrecruitment/selection-1248postsfor appointment as Patwari-Selection of2395 candidates-Writ Petition challenging selection on the ground that undue weightage given to performance in interview-Allowed by High Court-On appeal, held: Records of marks ofinterview and handwriting not considered by High Court- Matter needs reconsideration by High Court. f- The Subordinate Services Board issued an advertisement dated 7. 11. 1992 calling for applications for filling up 1248 posts ofPatwar candidates to be deputed to the Patwar Training School and on completion oftraining, for appointmentas Patwaris.

Against the advertised posts,2395 candidateswere recommended by the Board for admission to PatwarTrainingschool WritPetitioners challenged the selection on the ground that the selection beyond the -~ advertised posts was bad in law; that the marks for performance in the interview were to be restricted to 15% whereas in the present case 25 marks were allotted for the interview and 10 marks were given for the hand writing; that the criteria for selectionwas not onlydesigned to give undue weightage to viva voce and to bye-pass the observations made in *Satpal Singh 's case, it was even otherwise unsustainable as the guidelines were framed on 19. 5. 1993,whereas the process ofinterview had started on the very next day; that therewas room for manipulation as the records pertaining to all candidates were with the Board well before 19. 5. 1993; that the then Chief Minister Ch. Bhajan Lal on 26. 5.

1994 in a meeting held in his Assembly Constituency ofAdampur had clearly stated that promise ofone post ofPatwari to each family has been made possible which had influenced the selection which is clearly reflected from the fact that large number ofcandidates were selected from the Adampur and Kalka Assembly constituencies represented by Ch. Bhajan Lal and his son Sh. ChanderMohan. Prior selection in consequenceofadvertisement dated 19. 3~1987 outofwhich 377 candidates had cleared the course had been given appointment which was challenged in *Satpal Singh's case and the selection and appointment had been quashed. The High Court held that fixing·25% marks for interview and .

another 10 marks for handwriting on the face ofitwa8 unjustified; that selection was bad and there was no equity in favour of selected candidates; that there was malafides involved in the selection, however, granted time to appear in fresh selection and 1248 Patwariswho were presently in position were allowed to continue till the end ofJuly, 2007. Hence the present appeal. Disposing ofthe appeal, the Court HELD; 1~ Forthe process ofinterview, seven different Committees were appointed which functioned between 20. 5. 1993 to February, 1994. About 1. 10 lakhs candidates were interviewed who were short listed from amongst 1. 25 lakhs candidates. The final result was declared and 2395 candidates were selected for appointment interms ofHaryana Revenue Patwaris (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1981. It is to be noted p that the decision in *Satpal Singh's case was rendered on 14:9. 1993 whereas the criteria had only been framed on 19. 5. 1993.

In **Anzar Ahmad's case itwas held that 100% marks can be ear-marked for the interview, ifthere was no composite test. [Para 14] [475-E,F, G] Satpal Singh and Ors. v. State ofHaryana, (1995) 3 SLR 787; *Satpal and Ors. v. State ofHaryana and Ors. , [1995] Supp 1SCC206 and **4jay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors. etc. , AIR (1981) SC 487, referred to. 2. Emphasis laid by the High Court on the speech ofCh. Bhajan Lal appears to be not wholly appropriate in view ofwhathas been_stated I , by this Court in *Satpal Singh's case. [Para 18) [477-D] 3. The records of marks secured at the interview and in th~ handwriting by the selected candidates have not been considered by the High Court. Further, the distinguishing features noted by this Court' vis-a-vis those in *Satpal Singh's case were also not noticed. [Para23] [478-G] r 4. Since the High Court has not examined the materials in detail, it would be appropriate for the High Courtto reconsider the matter.

[Para 24) [478-H; 479-A] 5. The appellants who are continuing to function as Patwaris in terms ofthe order passed by theHighCourtand continued by this Court, would continue till the disposal ofthe matter by the High Court. [Para 26) [479-B, C] Anzar Ahmadv. State ofBiharand Ors. , [1994) 1SCC150; Kiran, Gupta andOrs. v. State ofUP. andOrs. , [2000) 7 SCC 719; Lila Dharv. State ofRajasthan and Ors. , [1981] 4 SCC 159; Vijay Syal andAnr. v. State ofPunjab and Ors. , [2003) 9 SCC 401; A. P. State Financial, Corporation v. CM AshokRaju, [1994] 5 SCC 359 and Jaswinder Singh v. State ofJ and K, [2003] 2 SCC 132, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4562 of, 2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 2. 8. 2005 ofthe High Court ofPunjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 11526of1994. WITH C. A. No. 4563-4573 of 2007. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Mukul Rohtagi, R. Venkataramani, J. L. Gupta, ArunJaitely, P. P. Roa, Rishi Malhotra, Prem Malhotra, Jasbir Singh Malik, S.

K Sabharwal, Sanjay Jain, Mukesh Kumar, Vinay Arora, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Anmol Thakural, Nidhesh Gupta, S. Janani, Puneet Bali, Prabjit Jauhar and S. S. Jauhar for the Appellant. ' Manjit Singh, AAG. (Haryana), Ravinder Srivastava, Anup G. -,_.. Chaudhary, Rajiv Dutta, Dr. Ramesh K. Haritosh, DR. Kailash Chand, Kuna! Verma, M. Manan, T. V. George, Harikesh Singh, June Chaudhary, Kamal Mohn Gupta, Yashpal Rangi, Shishir Pal Larar, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure and K. Sharda Devi for the Respondent. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by DR. ARinT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the Civil Writ Petitions filed by non official respondents. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') issued an advertisement dated 7. 11.

1992 calling for applications for filling up 1248 posts ofPatwar candidates to be deputed to the Patwar Training School and on completion of training, for appointment as Patwaris. Appellants had applied for the said posts. The list ofthe selected candidates was finalized and displayed from which it transpired that against the advertised posts 2395 candidates had been recommended by the Board for admission to the Patwar Training School. One ofthe writ petitioners filed an application to the Board asking for the supply ofdetails ofthe performance ofthe selected candidates, but those were not given. The selection was ir. ipugned in the writ petitions on several grounds. It was pointed out that the selection beyond the advertised posts was bad in law, the marks for performance in the interview were to be restricted to 15% whereas in the present case 25 marks were allotted for the interview and 10 marks were given for handwriting.

It was submitted that a similar provision made for ~election for Patwari candidates was quashed by the High Court in Satpal Singh and Ors. v. State ofHaryana, (1995 (3) SLR 787) and the jl! dgment was affirmed by this Court in Satpal and Ors. v. State ofHaryana and Ors. , [1995] Supp 1 SCC 206. It was emphasized that the criteria for selection was not only designed to give undue weightage to viva voce and to oye-pass the observations in Satpal Singh 's case (supra), it was even #. - otherwise unsustainable as the guidelines were framed on 19. 5. 1993, ... (_ whereas the process ofinterview had started on the very next date. There was room for manipulation as the records pertaining to all candidates were with the Board well before 19. 5. 1993. The then ChiefMinister Ch. Bhajan Lal on 26. 5. 1994 in a meeting held in his Assembly Constituency of Adampur had clearly stated that promise ofone post ofPatwari to each family has been made possible.

This had influenced the selection which is clearly reflected from the fact that large number of candidates were y ... , selected from the Adampur and Kalka Assembly constituencies represented by Ch. Bhajan Lal and his son Sh. Chander Mohan. 4. Stand ofthe Board was that though 1248 posts were advertised, 485 candidates who had been earlier selected as a consequence ofthe advertisement dated 19. 3. 1987 out ofwhich 377 candidates had cleared the course had been given appointment. It was also pointed out that this selection had been challenged in Satpal Singh 's case (supra) and the selection and appointment had been quashed and SLP Nos. 2944-45 of 1993 filed by the State ofHaryana had been dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 14. 9. 1993 with liberty to the 485 candidates to participate in a fresh selection. Therefore, after the advertisement 485 posts were available.

It was further pointed out that about 125 posts ofPatwaris fell vacant every year and the advertisement was issued in the year 1992. The projected demands for two years i. e. 1993 and 1994 were taken note of. Further, as a substantial percentage ofPatwaris candidates could not clear the Patwar Training School course, therefore, the same was also taken into account and ultimately the total number ofcandidates was fixed. It was pointed out that selection pursuant to the advertisement made in 1987 was quashed on the ground that 85% of the marks was reserved for interview, which was considered excessive. The Board had revised the criteria to bring it within the framework ofSatpal Singh 's case (supra) and had accordingly reduced the marks for the interview from 85% to ~ 25%. It was also stated that the allegation about the then ChiefMinister influencing the selection was unfounded.

It was also pointed out that it is not a fact that nearly 500 candidates from Adampur and 300 candidates from Kalka had been selected, as only 350 candidates from district Hisar which included Adampur constituency and 150 candidates from Ambala ofwhich Kalka constituency was a part amongst the first 1200 candidates and this was because ofthe large number ofapplications from that area i. e. about 19000 from Hisar and 6000 from Ambala district. 5. A separate reply was filed by the ChiefMinister who stated that his speech was being read out of context. 6. The High Court found that perhaps there was no serious flaw in the fact that candidates beyond the advertised 1248 posts had been selected. Butitwa5 found that the other points had merit. 7. It was held that in view ofwhat has beeri stated by this Court in Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors. etc. , AIR (1981) SC 487 fixing 25% marks for interview and another 10 marks for handwriting on the face ofit was unjustified.

It was held that the guidelines indicated in Satpal Singh 's case (supra) were not followed. 8. It was held that allotment ofmarks was designed in a way to byepass the order ofthe High Court in Satpal Singh 's case (supra) and preeminence was given to viva voce. Further, there was doubt about the sanctity ofthe selection. Accordingly, it was held that the selection was bad and there was no equity in favour ofthe selected candidates. There were malafides involved in selection. However, time was granted to appear in a fresh selection and the 1248 Patwaris who are presently in position were allowed to continue till the end ofJuly 2007. 9. Challenge was made by some others to the non-appointment of some candidates who were selected in terms ofadvertisement No. 4/97. The writ petitioners in those cases claimed that though they were successful in the selection they were not issued appointment letters. 10. Stand of the State Government was that the Government had decided.

not to appoint the selected candidates on account offinancial problems. The High Court found that they had option to appear in subsequent selection when subsequently any fresh selection process is initiated and th\::ir writ petitions will be considered butit was made clear that there should be relaxation ofconditions ofeligibility particularly with regard ~o the age ofthe selected candidates. · 11. In support ofthe appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the approach ofthe High Court is clearly erroneous. The High Court failed to notice that the position in Satpal Singh 's case (supra) was different. In fact various other decisions which were clearly applicable to the facts ofthe present cases had not been taken note of. Reference in this case was made to the decisions ofthis Court in Anzar Ahmad v. State ofBihar and Ors. , [1994] 1 sec 150, Kiran Gupta and Ors. V. State of UP. and Ors. , [2000] 7 SCC 719, Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

, [1981] 4 SCC 159 and Vijay Syal and Anr. v. State ofPunjab and Ors. , [2003] 9 SCC 401. Board supported this stand. 12. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment ofthe High Court and learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners on the other hand submitted that the High Court was justified in its view. 13. The criteria for selection as fixed by the Board was as follows: Academic record 60 marks Sports curriculum 5 marks Handwriting 10 marks Interview 25 marks 14. For-the process of interview, seven different Committees were ___.... appointed which functioned between 20. 5. 1993 to February, 1994. About 1. 10 lakhs candidates were interviewed who were short listed from amongst 1. 25 lakhs candidates. The final result was declared and 2395 candidates were selected for appointment in terms ofHaryana Revenue Patwaris (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1981. It is to be noted that the decision in Satpal Singh 's case (supra) was rendered on 14. 9.

1993 whereas the criteria had only been framed on 19. 5. 1993. In Anzar Ahmad's case (supra) it was held that 100% marks can be ear-marked for the interview, ifthere was no composite test. In para 20 it was held as follows: "In the instant case, we find that the State Government in its \ \ -t letter dated September 20, 1990 has clearly stated that selection should be made on the basis ofinterview. On tl:ie basis ofthis letter the Commission could have made the selection wholly on the basis ' ofmarks obtained at the interview. But in accordance with the past practice, the Commission has made the selection on the basis of interview while keeping in view the academic performance and with that end in view the Commission has allocated 50% marks for academic performance and 50% marks for interview. It cannot be held that the said procedure adopted by the Commission suffers from the vice ofarbitrariness.

By giving equal weight to academic performance the Commission has rather reduced the possibility of arbitrariness. " 15. TheAnzar Ahmad's case (supra) was followed by this Court in A. P. State Financial Corporation v. CM Ashok Raju, [1994] 5 SCC 359. In para 9 it was observed as follows: "We respectfully agree with the ratio inAnzar Ahmad's case and hold that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the allocation of25% marks in the viva voce test. " 16. In Kiran Gupta's case (supra) it was noted in para 25 as follows: "In Anzar Ahmad v. State ofBihar, [1994] 1 SCC 150 for appointment to the posts ofUnani Medical Officer the Government prescribed that the Public service Commission shall select the candidates on the basis ofinterview. The Commission allocated 50% marks for academic qualification and 50% for interview. This Court, after referring to the aforementioned cases and relying upon Lila Dhar case [1981] 4 SCC 159 upheld the method ofselection by interview alone.

That decision was followed in A. P. State Financial Corporation v. CM Ashok Raju, [1994] 5 SCC 359. In that case also selection of candidates by interview without a written test was upheld by this Court. The posts of Managers in the AP. Financial Corporation were to be filled by interview without a written test. The Corporation approved the promotion criteria by viva voce without a written test and allocated marks under _, various heads; among them for interview 25% and for length of service 15% marks were prescribed. A Division Bench ofthe High Court while upholding the allocation ofmarks under various heads, reduced the percentage ofmarks for interview :from 25% to 15% and increased percentage ofmarks for length ofservice :from 15% to 25%. On appeal this court held that the High Court fell into patent error in reaching the conclusion that 25% marks for interview were, in the facts ofthat case, excessive.

It was observed that there was no dispute that no written test was prescribed for promotion to the post ofManager and above and the selection/promotion was only by viva voce test, so no limit could be imposed for prescribing the marks for interview. " 17. The view was re-iterated in Jaswinder Singh v. State ofJ & K, [2003] 2 SCC 132 and Vijay Syal's case (supra). 18. Emphasis laid by the High Court on the speech ofCh. Bhajan Lal appears to be not wholly appropriate in view ofwhat has been stated by this Court in Satpal Singh 's case (supra) in para 5. 19. Pursuant to the directions, the marks secured at the interview and in the handwriting by the selected candidates were filed. It appears that so far as_the marks obtained for handwriting are concerned, in no case any selected candidate has secured more than 5 marks. The number ofcandidates and the marks secured by them are as follows: No. ofCandidates Marks obtained 8 258 2 508 3 - -. 31 23 6 24 25 22.

It is stated that the records of219 candidates were not available. 23. These details and the records therefore do not appear to have been considered by the High Court. Further, the distinguishing features noted by this Court vis-a-vis those in Satpal Singh 's case (supra) were also not noticed. 24. Since the High Court has not examined the materials in detail, it would be appropriate for the High Court to reconsider the matter in the light ofdecisions referred to above. 25. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that Satpal Singh 's case (supra) is factually distinguishable. It should also be considered by the High Court. 26. Since the matter is pending since long, we request the High Court to dispose ofthe matter as early as possible preferably within six months from the receipt ofcopy of our judgment.

The appellants who are continuing to function as Patwaris in terms ofthe order passed by the High Court and continued by this Court, shall continue till the disposal of the matter by the High Court. It shall be open to the High Court to pass such interim orders as it may deem appropriate in accordance with law. The appellants were not parties before the High Court. Ifthey apply for impleadment, necessary orders shall be passed by High Court. 27. The appeals are disposed ofwith no order as to costs. D. G. Appeals disposed of.