Ram Bhajan Singh vs State of Punjab and others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—Heard. The petitioner, who belongs to reserved category i.e. Balmiki/Majhabi Sikh Ex-servicemen Category applied in response to an advertisement issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission inviting applications for the appointment to the posts of Tehsildar and Excise & Taxation Officers. As per averments made in the petition, out of total of 74 posts of Excise & Taxation Officers, one post was reserved for the reserved category to which the petitioner belongs and likewise, out of six posts of Tehsildar, one post was again reserved for the category to which the petitioner belongs. The petitioner is stated to have qualified the preliminary examination and thereafter, even appeared in the main examination, the result of which was declared on 27.04.2012.

Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that in terms of the prospectus issued by the Commission, the benchmark fixed for the candidates appearing for the main examination was 45% in the aggregate of all the subjects with at least 33% marks in Punjabi (Gurmukhi Script). Counsel further concedes that the petitioner had secured 44.5% marks and as such, had not qualified in terms of obtaining marks below the benchmark of 45% fixed by the Commission.

The only submission raised by the counsel is that the petitioner has preferred a representation dated 02.05.2012 (Annexure P-6) in terms of which, he has invoked Clause 7 given in the prospectus at page Nos. 79 & 80 thereof, whereby, a discretion has been vested with the Commission to lower the percentage in the eventuality of a sufficient number of candidates not obtaining 45% marks in the aggregate in the main competitive examination. Accordingly, counsel prays that a direction be issued for the Commission to consider and decide the claim raised by the petitioner in terms of representation dated 02.05.2012 (Annexure P-6)

I am unable to agree with the submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioner. The issue regarding lowering the percentage marks of 45% is clearly discretionary and the same would vest with the Commission. It would not be open for the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek any directions to the Commission so as to exercise discretion as regards lowering the minimum percentage of marks. I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.