Doctor Parshotam Kumar Mittal vs Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala and others

I.S. Tiwana, J.—In response to an advertisement published by Punjab Public Service Commission, respondent No. 1, on November 25, 1971, inviting applications for five posts of PCMS Class I (Gazetted), the petitioner applied for one of those posts. An interview letter (Annexure ''B'') was sent to him by the Commission for appearing before the Commission on June 14, 1072 at 9. A.M. It is the admitted position that the petitioner who was a member of PCMS Class II and was posted at Phagwara at a distance of about SO/90 miles from the office of the Commission at Patiala was somewhat late in reaching there. On that account the Commission declined to interview the petitioner and to consider his case. The petitioner offered an explanation for his delayed arrival pleading that on the previous evening, that is, June 13, 1072, he received a serious case of ''crush injury of hand by thrasher'' and in order to attend to that case, had to delay his departure from Phagwara. It was only the next early morning that he could start by bus from there and by the time he reached the office of the Commission at Patiala, he was late by about 20 minutes. The Commission did not accept this explanation and, as already indicated, declined to interview the petitioner. The petitioner impugns this action of the Commission as highly unjust and arbitrary.

The stand of the respondent Commission is disclosed in the following words :--

The contents of this paragraph are denied. Doctor Parshotam Kumar Mittal Presented himself in the office of the Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala, at 9.20 A.M. as is clear from the time marked in pencil by the Committee Room Attendant of the Commission''s office on the attendance sheet. No doubt Doctor Parshotam Kumar Mittal signed the attendance list on that day, but he indicated the time of his arrival against his signature which he subsequently scored out. This further confirms the fact of his having reached late. Two other doctors named Shri Shingara Singh and Shri Suresh Chander Parathi also reached at 9.20 A.M. on that date. Their time of arrival was also noted in pencil by the Committee Room Attendant on the attendance sheet and these two doctors also signed the attendance sheet. The candidates summoned for interview are given definite date and time for presenting themselves for interview before the Public Service Commission with the clear instructions under paragraph 8 of the interview letter (copy attached) that late comers will not be interviewed by the Commission. The Committee Room Attendant after getting signatures on the prescribed form of all the candidates who are present by the time indicated in the interview letter, informs the Commission about their presence and about the absence of the remaining candidates, A copy of the prescribed form is attached. The Commissioner were accordingly informed of the absence of the three doctors including Shri Parshotam Kumar Mittal and and presence of other candidates summoned for that date. Before the interview starts information in the prescribed form (copy attached) is obtained from the candidates and these forms are given to the Commission so that information in respect of each candidate is available to the Commission at the time of his interview. Such forms in respect of about half a dozen candidates had also been sent to the Commission before the petitioner reached the office of the Commission. The name of Parshotam Kumar Mittal was at serial No. 2 of that list. The three doctors, Sharvshri Parshotam Kumar Mittal. Shri Shingara Singh and Suresh Chander Parathi who reached later were not interviewed. On 12th June, 1972 also one candidate named Dr. Bir Bhan Garg reached at 10.15 A.M. and the Commission did not interview him. In connection with interview for other posts also the Commission have been refusing to interview late comers in accordance with the practice being followed.

It is further stated in paragraph 8 of the return that the explanation given by the petitioner was considered not to be enough to permit him to he interviewed. As per this return it is again the admitted position that by the time the petitioner reached the office of the commission, the very first candidate, Dr. Prem Kumar Kataria was being interviewed and there was yet a good number of candidates who were to be interviewed.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I find that the action of the respondent Commission in not interviewing or considering the case of the petitioner undoubtedly is not only unjust and arbitrary but also borders on discrimination. It is the admitted case of the respondent Commission that all the candidates who were sought to be interviewed on that day had been intimated the same (sic) i.e. to appear before the Commission at 9 A.M. So it is apparent the all the candidates possibly could not be interviewed at one and the (sic) time, that is at 9 A.M. and they had essentially to be called for (sic) in order one after the other. So if the petitioner had reached (sic) of the Commission as he did by the time the Commission had (sic) review some of the candidates for the posts advertised, I feel it (sic) been just fair for the Commission to interview and consider (sic) the petitioner also. No doubt it is true that the Commission (sic) some sort of practice to prepare a list of the candidates (sic) office of the Commission by the stipulated time and then to (sic) viewing the candidates in the order mentioned in that list, but, to (sic) mind, this not such an inflexible procedure that a candidate who is late in reaching the office by a few minutes on account of the factors which are beyond his control that it is not possible for the Commission to interview or consider the case of that candidate. Undoubtedly the whole effort on the part of the Commission is to select the best possible candidates available for the posts advertised and keeping that in view the Commission is expected to interview or at least consider the cases of all the candidates who make themselves available for that purpose. By these observations I do not mean to suggest that any candidate who chooses to come late or comes as and when he likes on the date of interview has necessarily to be interviewed by the Commission under all circumstances. Each case has to be considered and decided on its own facts. It is well known that watches like women seldom agree. One may genuinely be in time but may still be late according to the Commission''s or Committee room attendant''s watch. The practice adopted by the Commission howsoever well meaning it may be, cannot be made so stringent or inflexible that it becomes instrumental in defeating, the very purpose of these interviews i.e. the selection of the best talent available. If it is taken to that level its likelihood of being misused also can not be ruled out. I mean no aspersions.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I allow this petition and direct the Commission to interview and consider the case of the petitioner for the post for which he was to be interviewed on June 14, 1972. It would also be open to the Commission to call even those candidates who were declined the interview on that day or earlier for being late or for any other similar reason. It is further directed that in case the petitioner is selected and recommended by the Commission for being appointed to the said post, the Government authorities would consider the case of the petitioner on merits. I, however, pass no order as to costs.