Ambika Sharma vs State of Punjab and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—The petitioner has filed the present petition claiming a writ of certiorari to seek quashing of Clause 2(e)(iii) of instructions

issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission inter-alia on the ground that the said conditions are contrary to Punjab Civil Services (Judicial

Branch) Rules, 1951. The petitioner also claims a writ of mandamus, as a candidate to be appointed on the basis of merit in the list of Lineal

Descendants of Ex-servicemen category. The petitioner was a candidate for Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Examination - 2011. The

petitioner is aggrieved against Clause 2(e)(iii) of the Instructions, which reads as under:

Details of Examination xxx xxx xxx

e. Viva Voce

(i) The Viva-Voce shall carry 100 marks and final result shall be prepared on the basis of the grand total of the marks obtained by the candidates

in the Main Examination and the Viva-Voce.

(ii) No candidate shall be called for the Viva-Voce unless he obtains at least 50% qualifying marks in the aggregate of all the written papers and

qualifies in language paper Punjabi (Gurmukhi Script). The candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes of Punjab and Backward Classes of Punjab

shall be called for the Viva-Voce test if they obtain 45% qualifying marks in the aggregate of all written papers and qualify in Language Paper

Punjabi (Gurmukhi Script).

(iii) No candidate shall be considered to have qualified unless he/she obtains 50% marks (read 45% marks for the SC/BC category candidates) in

aggregate out of the total marks of the written examination and Viva-Voce.

xxx xxx xxx

The petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in Rajinder Pal Singh Vs. The State of Haryana and Others, to contend that the condition

of obtaining 50% marks in the aggregate of written papers and vivavoce has not been accepted. It has been held that the High Court cannot fix

higher standards as a condition for qualification for entry of the names in the Register for appointment unless the State Government agrees to such

process even without amending the Rules.

Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that similar question arises in CWP No. 4277 of 2000 titled ""Jarnail Singh etc. v. State of Punjab

etc."" In which, the arguments have been heard and is pending decision. In the said case the candidates belonging to reserved categories i.e.

Scheduled Castes & Backward Classes were not offered appointment, as they have not obtained 50% marks in aggregate.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the present petition has no merit. The reliance of the petitioner on Rajinder Pal

Singh''s case (supra) is misplaced. The said case pertains to the selection made in the year 1999 by the Haryana Public Service Commission,

whereas Jarnail Singh''s case (supra) relates to the selection made in the year 1998 conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission.

However, the selection in the present case i.e. in the year 2011, has been carried out by a Committee constituted in pursuance of the directions of

the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 04.01.2007 in Civil Appeal No. 1867 of 2006 titled ""Malik Mazhar Sultan & another v. U.P. Public Service

Commission & others. The said Committee has the representatives of the High Court; State Government i.e. Chief Secretary, Punjab, Principal

Secretary Home, Punjab and Advocate General, Punjab as well as Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission. It is the decision of such

Committee, which provided that 50% marks in aggregate of written test and viva-voce is necessary before a candidate can be said to be qualified

for appointment and such condition was incorporated in the advertisement itself, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

Therefore, the ratio of Rajinder Pal Singh''s case (supra) is not remotely applicable to the present case. It was held that the High Court cannot

fix higher standards as a condition for qualification for entry of the names in the Register for appointment unless the State Government agrees to

such process even without amending the Rules. But in the present case, the decision is of the High Court, State Government and the Public Service

Commission. Since examination in the present case has been conducted by the Committee including the representatives of the State Government,

the consent of the State Government that 50% marks in aggregate of written test or viva-voce is required to be obtained is squarely met and no

such argument can be raised in the present case. The selection process cannot be, thus, said to be illegal. Consequently, we do not find any merit in

the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.