Gurpal Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to interview him for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) against handicapped category by giving him the benefit of rounding off his percentage in diploma in Electrical Engineering from 59.67% to 60%.

Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was suffering physical disability to the extent of 50%. Respondent-Board had issued advertisement Annexure P-4 for filling up of 225 posts of Junior Engineers (Electrical). Petitioner being fully eligible submitted his application form complete in all respects under the handicapped category. Petitioner appeared for the written test. Petitioner was called to appear for counseling on 19.3.2010 along with all his relevant certificates. When the petitioner appeared before the selection committee, he was told that he was not eligible for the post as he had secured 59.67% marks in three years diploma in Electrical Engineering, whereas, he was required to obtain 60% marks. Hence, the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was liable to be considered for the post of Junior Engineer in the handicapped category by rounding off his marks in diploma in Electrical Engineering from 59.67% to 60%. Further as per the instructions Annexure P-9, petitioner was liable to be given relaxation for the appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) being handicapped person.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that as per the advertisement, petitioner was required to submit the application form complete in all respects. However, petitioner had failed to sign the application form Annexure R-2 and therefore, was not eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer, (Electrical). Further the petitioner had shown his marks in the relevant subject as 60% instead of 59.67%. Since petitioner was not having minimum necessary marks in diploma in Electrical Engineering, he could not be considered for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). It is only due to inadvertence, petitioner had been asked to appear in the written test on account of his incorrect mentioning of the marks in diploma in Electrical Engineering. Learned counsel has further submitted that the marks obtained by the petitioner in diploma in Electrical Engineering could not be rounded off from 59.67% to 60%. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Rajbir Singh vs. The Punjab State Electricity Board 1997 (3) SCT 462, wherein, it was held as under:-

A careful reading of the above extracted portion of the eligibility criteria shows that in order to qualify the written test a candidate must secure minimum 30% marks. Thus securing of at least 30% marks is a condition precedent before a candidate can qualify in the written test. In other words, the smallest possible percentage of marks or the least number of marks which a candidate must secure in order to become eligible is 30%. As a logical corollary it can be said that the one who secures less than 30% marks is not qualified. There is nothing in the advertisement or in the rules or regulations framed by the Board to show that a fraction of mark is to be rounded off to one if it is 0.5 or more and it is to be rounded off to zero in case it is less than 0.5. In the absence of such a rule or a clause in the advertisement it is not possible for the Court to rewrite the criteria laid down by the Board. A mere possibility of some hardship in a case like the present one cannot justify the passing of an order so as to amend the criteria laid down by the Board. Thus, we do not find any merit in the argument of Shri Gulshan Sharma that the Court should apply the rule of rounding off and declare the petitioner as pass in the written test conducted by the Board.

Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Kuldip Singh vs. State of Punjab and others 1998 (1) SCT 339, wherein, it was held as under:-

From the above discussion, it follows that law stated by the learned Single Judge in Asha Mehta''s case (supra) and that by the Division Bench in Raj Deep Singh''s case (supra) do not represent the correct law. We disapprove the same. Method of rounding off percentage of marks obtained in the written examination for bringing a candidate into the field of choice for selection to a post is not warranted by law. We are also of the considered view that for selecting candidates to any post on competition marks obtained in the examination/test is not to be rounded off to the next whole number unless the Rule governing the selection specifically provides for the same.

In view of what has been stated above, we find no merit in these writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. However, we make no order as to costs.

In the present case, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed merely on the ground that the petitioner had submitted incomplete form. Therefore, his case was not liable to be considered for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). As per the advertisement Annexure P-4, in case the application was not received on a prescribed proforma or was incomplete or was received without signatures, it was liable to be rejected.

Annexure R-2 is the application form submitted by the petitioner seeking appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the category of handicapped persons. Original of Annexure R-2 has also been shown by the learned counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments. A perusal of the same reveals that the petitioner had failed to sign the declaration to the effect that all the submissions made in the application were true and correct on the basis of his knowledge and belief and he understood that in the event of any information being found false or incorrect or not satisfying the prescribed eligibility criteria for the post applied for, his candidature was liable to be cancelled/rejected at any stage of selection. It appears that due to inadvertence, petitioner was called for written examination. However, the candidature of the petitioner was liable to be cancelled as he had failed to sign the declaration provided in the application form. It was necessary for the petitioner to have signed the declaration as the same was very relevant. Although, the petitioner had signed page No. 1 of the application form but had failed to sign the necessary declaration. In these circumstances, the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) was liable to be rejected. Without going into other contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the form submitted by the petitioner was not duly singed. No ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Dismissed.