Anupam Rani vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission

Augustine George Masih, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court assailing the process of shortlisting, which has been adopted by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission by fixing 65% as the cut off marks at the Graduation level which is the eligibility qualification for the general category for calling a candidate for interview. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that an advertisement dated 19.03.2011 has been issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (Annexure P-1), wherein 278 posts of Female Supervisor have been advertised. 118 posts are reserved for general category. In the educational qualification, it has been provided that a candidate should be a graduate from a recognized university preferably in Home Science or Child Development or Nutrition with Hindi/Sanskrit up to Matric Standard. Petitioner has passed her graduation in Home Science in Nutrition and has obtained 63.2% marks. By fixing 65% as a cut off percentage for making a candidate eligible for participation in the interview, the claim of the petitioner has been prejudicially affected and the clause of preference mentioned in the educational qualifications has been rendered infructuous. He, accordingly, contends that the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to appear in the interview as she fulfills the advertised educational qualifications for the post of Female Supervisor with a preferential qualification. He, on this basis, contends that the impugned notification issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission dated 01.08.2012 (Annexure P-4) cannot sustain and deserves to be quashed.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, have gone through the records of the case.

In the advertisement, which was issued on 19.03.2011 (Annexure P-1) in the Special Instruction, which was a part of the advertisement itself, it was stated as follows:-

The prescribed essential qualification does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview. The Commission may short list the candidates for interview by holding a written examination or on the basis of a rationale criterion to be adopted by the Commission. The decision of the Commission in all matters relating to acceptance or rejection of an application, eligibility/suitability of the candidates, mode of, and criteria for selection etc. will be final and binding on the candidates. No inquiry or correspondence will be entertained in this regard.

In the light of the above-mentioned Special Instructions, the Commission had retained with itself the authority to adopt a procedure for shortlisting the candidates for interview. It has been clearly mentioned that it could either be by way of written examination or on the basis of rationale criteria to be adopted by the Commission. Fixing of 65% as a cut off marks for the general category of the eligibility qualification is quite justified and rationale and cannot be said to be arbitrary.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the preferential qualification, as prescribed in the advertisement, has been rendered redundant, cannot be accepted as the said preferential qualification is for the purpose of appointment and the basic qualification for a candidate, which he should possess for being eligible for appointment, is graduation from a recognized university. Since the petitioner does not possess the minimum percentage fixed as a cut off for calling the candidates for interview, the petitioner cannot make the grouse to that effect especially when the preferential qualification is to be taken into consideration at a stage when the appointments to the post are to be made. This process has been adopted by the Commission only for shortlisting of the candidates. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.