JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the decision taken by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (for short, “the Commission”), to short-list the candidates for the posts of Lecturers in Economics (School Cadre) by excluding certain qualifications from the criteria daled 12.6.1997.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Backward Class of Haryana being Bairagi by caste. He possesses the qualifications of Matric, B.A., M.A. and B.Ed. He is also said to be a sportsman and has taken part in the event of Volleyball in Inter-Univer-sity Championship held in 1986-87. He applied for recruitment as Lecturer in Economics in pursuance of advertisement No. 6 of 1997 (published in The Tribune dated 22.12.1997) issued by the Commission for recruitment of 691 Lecturers (School Cadre). He has invokedjurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the mechanism adopted by the Commission for short-listing the candidates to be called for selection on the ground that it is contrary to the decision taken by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana (predecessor of the Commission) (for short, “the Board”) in its meeting held on 12.6.1997. He has averred that if the criteria framed by the Board had been followed for short-listing the candidates, then he would have crossed the cutoff marks i.e. 33 fixed by the Commission for calling the candidates for final selection.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the criteria framed by the Board, the criteria applied for short-listing the candidates, who had applied for selection in pursuance of advertisement No. 1 of 1997 as well as the criteria dated 17.10.1988 applied by the Commission for short- listing the candidates, who had applied in pursuance of advertisement No. 6 of 1997 and argued that the deviation made by the Commission from ihe criteria framed by the Board on 12.6.1997 is totally arbitrary and capricious and viola-tive of the petitioner’s fundamental right to equality in the matter of employment guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. She pointed out that the decision of the Commission to allocate marks only in respect of academic, technical and professional qualifications of the candidates and to leave out the experience and other qualifications, like sports is totally arbitrary and unconstitutional and, therefore, shortlisting done by adopting that process should be declared illegal and a direction be given for consideration of the petitioner’s candidature.
4. During the course of arguments, we enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what are the petitioner’s qualifications other than the academic and professional ones. In reply, she invited our attention to the certificates Annexures P-6/I and P-6/II issued by Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and submitted that if the marks had been allocated in lieu of the sports achievement of the petitioner, his name would have been included in the list of candidates, who were found eligible for being called for selection,
5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. The decision taken in the meeting of the Board held in 12.6.1997, the criteria adopted by the
Board for short-listing the candidates, who had applied in pursuance of advertisement No. I of 1997 and the criteria applied by the Commission for short-listing the candidates, who had applied in pursuance of advertisement No. 6 of 1997, read as under:-
CRITERIA FRAMED BY THE BOARD ON
12.6.1997.
SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION
BOARD,
HARYANA.
S.C.O. NO. 803, MANIMAJRA,
(UT), CHANDIGARH,
PUBLIC NOTICE REGARDING
SHORT LISITING OF CANDIDATES.
With reference to the advertisement issued by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana on or before 22.5.1997 inviting applications for various categories of posts and where the selection is yet to be made, it is notified for the information of all applicants that due to heavy receipt of applications it has become imperative to shortlist the candidates to bring the number of candidates for interview within a practicable range. Hence the Board in its meeting held on 30.5.1997 has decided:-
a) That where the service rules of the concerned department prescribed a pre-condition for candidates fora particular post to qualify/pass in a written test, such a test will be held by the Board irrespective of the number of candidates.
b) That where a pre-condition of test mentioned in (a) above is not prescribed, the selection shall be made by interview alone if the number of candidates does not exceed by about eight times the number of posts to be filled, and,
c) that in all the other cases, the applicants shall be short- listed either by holding a written test or on the basis of merit based on the weighted score for academic, professional, other qualifications, etc.
After the applicants have been placed in the descending order on the above basis, applicants equal to eight times of the number of posts to be filled, shall be called for interview. The final decision of the candidates shall be made by determining the merit of the candidates on above basis plus viva-voce marks.
d) With regard to clause (c) above, the Chairman of (he Board shall decide the method of short-listing in each case.
Place : Manimajra.
Dated : 12th June, 1997.
Sd/- Secretary.
Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana.
xx xx xx
6. CRITERIA APPLIED BY THE BOARD FOR SHORT LISTING IN PURSUANCEOF ADVERTISEMENT NO. 1 OF 1997.
CRITERIA FOR SHORT LISTING:
(a) Matric/+2
(.10 of the
percentage of marts obtained in either of the above examinations in whichever highest
marks have been obtained).
(b) B.A./B.Sc./B-Com.
(.10 percent
of the marks obtained).
(c) M.A/M.Sc./M.Com.
(35 per cent Of the marks
obtained).
(d) Marks given for higher
qualification: 5 marks on the following basis:-
(i) Ph.D. in the
concerned subject
5 marks.
(ii) M.Phill in the concerned subject
4 marks
(iii) M A /M-Sc /M Ed. in other subject
with a maximum of 3 marks
1 marks for each
(e) Experience.
A Her obtaining the requisite
qualification experience in teaching in Senior Secondary Schools:
5marks (1/2marks for every six months).
(f) Participation in sports at
District, State, National, Inter national Level/N.C.C./ Scouts &Girls Guidance, (duly recognised) … 5 marks
xx
xx xx
7. CRITERIA APPLIED BY THE COMMISSION IN WORTLISTING INPURSUANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT NO. 6 OF 1997.
CRITERIA
(a) Matric/+2 or
equivalent 0, 10 of the %age of marts obtained either in the above
examination in whichever highest marks have been obtained
10 marks.
(b) b.A./b.Sc.O.15% of the marks obtained.
15 marks.
(e) MA/M.Sc. in the
concerned subject; 0.40% of the marks obtained.
40 marks
(d) Higher/Additional
qualification-
3 marks.
(i) PhD in the relevant subject
3 marks
ii) M Phif. in the
relevant subject
3 marks
iii) Post Graduate degree in
any other allied subject or
M.Ed.
1 marks
NOTE: Candidates covered under Clause i) to iii) above shall be given marks only under one clause which is more Beneficial to him/her.
8. The number of candidates of General Category or reserved category being more than eight times of the number of posts have been short listed and only those candidates have been issued letters for interview who obtained the minimum rounded of the score given below:-
Subject
Minimum Score
Rounded Score.
1. Economics (Male)
37.04
37.00
2. (Economics (Female)
39.61
39.00
3. Economics (Male)
B.C (A)
33.92
33.00
B.C. (B)
33.81
33.00
4. Economics (Female)
B.C. (A)
35.11
35.00
B.C.(B)
34.91
34.00
Addition to the above the categories of reserved category being not more than eight times in number of posts in the respective sub-category all of them have
been called for interviews. Candidates who are called for interview will be awarded upto 2 marks for experience of teaching in relevant subject to senior secondary or higher classes on the basis of certificate which should be duly authenticated by the Distt. Education Officer/Director of Haryana Education/Director Ken-driya Vidyalas. The interview/Viva-voce test for JO marks shall cover knowledge of the subject and communication skill, general knowledge, general awareness, intelligence and personality.
9. If any of the candidates with the above mentioned rounded off weighed score of higher score that it does not receive the call letter by 29.10.98 he/she should contact the undersigned on any day from 30.10.98 to 31.10.98 during office hours alongwith original marks sheet and Certificates/Degrees in support of academic qualifications and proof of having deposited the requisite fee.
Interviews shall be held from 2.11.98 to 6.11.98. According to the publication candidate would be awarded upto two marks for experience of teaching in the relevant subject to Senior Secondary or Higher Classes on the basis of the Certificate.”
10. A careful reading of the above reproduced criteria shows that there is no substantial difference between the criteria framed by the Board and applied by it qua advertisement No. 1 of 1997 on the one hand and the criteria applied by the Commission in 1998 on the other hand except that in the last criteria, no credit has been given in lieu of the sports achievements of the candidates. We may have dealt with the petitioner’s plea about the arbitrary exclusion of his candidature due to non-award of marks for experience and sports achievements, but keeping in view the fact that he has not participated in the Volleyball tournament at District, Slate, National or International level, adjudication of this issue would be partly academic. Two cer-tificates produced by the petitioner do not, in any manner, support his claim for award of marks in lieu of sport achievements. Therefore, we do not find any justification to entertain his prayer for any invalidation of the criteria applied by the commission for short-listing the candidates who had applied in response to advertisement No. 6 of 1997.
11. Faced with this, the learned counsel submitted that even though the petitioner may not get the benefit of additional marks, the criteria applied by the Commission should be declared illegal because other more meritorious candidates may have been excluded from the list prepared by the Commission for the purpose of selection. In our opinion, this submission of the learned counsel merits rejection because no other candidate has come forward to make a grievance against his/her arbitrary exclusion from the zone of consideration.
12. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.
13. Petition dismissed.
