Nidhi Garg and others vs State of Punjab and another

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The petitioners before this Court are Law Graduates who aspire to appear in the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Services) Examination 2011 and compete for a berth in the subordinate judiciary against a number of vacancies advertised on 15.9.2011(P-1) by the Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala. The last date fixed for receiving applications is 17.10.2011. The complaint is that the Commission has fixed Rs. 2000/-as examination fee for the general category and Rs. 500/-for Scheduled Caste/Backward Class category candidates.

The claim is that a mandamus be issued to the Commission not to charge the alleged exorbitant fee, such as that fixed and to scale it down. The claim is based on a comparison of examination fee charged by recruiting agencies from both general and reserved category candidates in the judicial services examination conducted by other States such as Haryana, Delhi, Karnataka, Uttrakhand and Rajasthan. Though the attack is based on unreasonableness, the underlying claim appears to spring from inter-state discrimination and that, therefore this Court should call upon the Commission to reduce the examination fee in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

We have heard the petitioner appearing in person and have perused the file.

We are afraid; it is not for this Court in writ jurisdiction to examine the decision of the Commission relating to fixation of examination fee and to dissect it in rupees and paisa. The Commission is a constitutional body and in its wisdom, if it has fixed the examination fee looking to its resources and the expenditure involved they would be deemed to have taken into consideration various cost factors; the expenses involved in the huge exercise that lies ahead where thousands of candidates may come forward to compete for public appointments through the mill of the preliminary examination, the final examination, and interviews etc. The impugned fee operates equally within its range of selection universal to all aspirants of both categories. This court would be loath to interfere in such a trifling matter, particularly where appointments to Judicial Office are sought. Aspirants to judicial office must remember not to start life on a litigious note unless there is real injury. It bodes ill.

We are not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction in this matter where no demonstrable injury has been caused to the petitioners and none of their fundamental or civil rights has been infringed by the action impugned. If the competent authorities of other states have chosen to charge fee lower than that fixed by the respondent Commission it will not give rise to discrimination sufficient to call for interference. We do not accept the plea of inter state discrimination and any argument based on it or that the fee chargeable is an insurmountable barrier in the search of merit. We, therefore, dismiss the petition in limini but with no order as to costs.