AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Umesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J.—This appeal is directed against the order of the learned trial Judge dismissing writ application though, however, with a direction that the respondents ought to consider the case of the petitioner in the event of a vacancy arising in future.
The contextual facts have been very lucidly dealt with by the learned trial Judge and we do not repeat the same to avoid prolixity, excepting where it is required to be dealt with.
The selection process started by the issuance of a notification published in the daily newspaper "Eenadu" dated 12th October 1995 by Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, for the posts of Programme Assistant, Head Nurse/Nursing Tutors, Radiographer, Blood Bank Technician and Operation Theatre Assistant. The appellant-petitioner, in terms of the notification, did apply for the post of Programme Assistant and the Institute did send a call letter on 15th November, L995. The records depict that the selection process was conducted not by the Institute itself but by two Professors being Dr. Pramod Kumar Pal and Dr. Sashidharan. It appears from the order of the learned trial Judge that as a matter fact, the respondents produced the marks list in respect of all the candidates and it was shown in the list that the petitioner was placed in 8th rank having secured 60% of the marks whereas the other candidates above her name secure more than 60%.
The learned advocate appearing in support of the appellant strongly contended that while the selection process was arbitrary by reason of the fact that the petitioner ought to have been otherwise selected but the records depict that the selection committee has placed, as noted above, the petitioner in the 8th rank.
It is not for the Court to supplement the list; otherwise the Court will replace itself in the place of Selection Committee, which exercise the Court ought not to embark upon. As such, the Court ought not to exercise jurisdiction to deal with the matter which is left entirely to the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee consists of eminent persons and the selection process adopted by the Selection Committee cannot be termed to be arbitrary in any way, more so by reason of the fact that the respondents have produced the marks list of all the candidates before the learned trial Judge.
The learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeal further contended that, as a matter of fact, the question of awarding 30% of marks for viva voce or oral test does not and cannot arise and placed reliance on the decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, .
While it is true that allocation of 22.2% of total marks for the viva voce test has not been accepted to be an adoptable method and there may be occasion for acting arbitrarily in regard to selection, but in view of the observations in paragraph 28 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, we do not think that the use of discretion by the learned single Judge ought to be lightly interfered with. For convenience sake, paragraph 28 is reproduced herein below:
"But the question which then arises for consideration is as to what is the effect of allocation of such a high percentage of marks for the viva voce test, both in case of ex-service officers and in case of other candidates, on the selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission. Though we have taken the view that the percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce test in both these cases is excessive, we do not think we would be justified in the exercise of our discretion in setting aside the selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission after lapse of almost two years. The candidates selected by the Haryana Public Service Commission have already been appointed to various posts and have been working on these posts since the last about two years. Moreover the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules 1930 under which 33.3% marks in case of ex-service officers and 22.2% marks in case of other candidates have been allocated for the viva voce test have been in force for almost 50 years and everyone has acted on the basis of these rules. If selections made in accordance with the prescription contained in these rules are now to be set aside it will upset a large number of appointments already made on the basis of such selections and the integrity and efficiency of the entire administrative machinery would be seriously jeopardised. We do not therefore propose to set aside the selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission though they have been made on the basis of an unduly high percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce test."
Similar is the situation in the contextual facts. While it is true that 30% marks were awarded for viva voce, but the fact remains, after the decision of the learned trial Judge, the appointments did take place and the persons appointed are already working in terms of the notification at the Institute. The learned trial Judge has been indulgent enough to record that the petitioner''s case ought to be considered in future for any vacancy and we record our appreciation for such indulgence. Therefore, the question of entertaining the appeal does not and cannot arise. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.