Jaswinder Singh vs The State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved of the action of the respondent-authorities in not having been selected and appointed him as Constable in pursuance to the selection process having been initiated in the light of the advertisement dated 10.09.2010 issued by the Director General of Police, Punjab for recruitment of 319 Constables (male and female) in the District Police cadre. Brief facts that would require notice, are that the advertisement dated 10.09.2010 was issued by respondent No. 2 for the posts of male and female Constables in the District Police cadre. The eligibility criteria was laid down in the advertisement itself, wherein educational qualifications, age, medical standards etc. were stipulated. As per advertisement, the selection process was to comprise of three phases i.e. physical measurement, physical efficiency test and interview. The criteria for selection was also disclosed in the advertisement, wherein marks were assigned towards interview, educational qualifications and height. The relevant extract of the advertisement in so far as criteria/marks read in the following terms:-

(c) Interview:

Interview shall carry 4 marks.

(D) The candidates shall be awarded marks on the basis of educational qualification and height as follow:

i) Education/Qualification

ii) Height

Note: Merit of the candidates will be drawn on the basis of the total marks obtained in educational qualification, height and interview.

It has been pleaded that the petitioner had submitted his application within the stipulated time frame and had duly participated in the selection process. After his physical measurement and physical efficiency test, the petitioner was also called for the interview. However, in the final merit determined by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner has secured 25.25 marks and his name does not appear in the final merit/select list.

Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that in the merit determined in so far as the petitioner is concerned there are a number of irregularities and infirmities in as much as 5 additional marks that were to be given to a candidate belonging to the rural area category, have not been granted. Counsel would further argue that in the interview, the petitioner has been awarded only 0.25 marks against a total of 4 marks and this, by itself, has worked to the detriment and prejudice of the petitioner. Counsel would advert to the merit list of the candidates, duly selected and would submit that all the selected candidates have been awarded marks ranging from 0.50 to 3.50 marks and would argue that the respondent-authorities had adopted a pick and choose policy just to accommodate and select their favourites. Furthermore, it has been argued that during the process of interview, no questions were asked and only the certificates possessed by the candidates, were verified and checked and as such, there was no occasion for the respondent-authorities to have awarded only 0.25 marks to the petitioner in the interview.

Upon notice of motion having been issued, a joint written statement on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 has been filed. In the written statement, the categoric stand has been taken that no marks were assigned in so far as candidates belonging to rural category. In furtherance of such stand, learned counsel appearing for the State would refer to the merit list of the candidates, duly selected for recruitment as Constables, where from, it is clear that no marks towards rural area category have been awarded to any of the candidates. Still further, it has been stated that there were total 319 posts for direct recruitment of Constables, and 168 candidates have been selected in the General category to which, the petitioner belongs. The last candidate at Serial No. 168 against the General category, has obtained 26.50 marks, whereas the petitioner has obtained only 25.25 marks. Accordingly, it is prayed that as per merit determined, the petitioner has no right to the appointment to the post in question.

Counsel for the parties have been heard at length and the pleadings on record have been perused.

Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that petitioner has been correctly awarded 10 marks towards educational qualification on account of possessing the qualification of 10+2. It has further been conceded that the petitioner, who possesses a height of 6''3'''', has been awarded 15 marks as per criteria disclosed in the advertisement. The assertion made by the learned counsel towards 0.25 marks only having been assigned in the interview in furtherance of a policy of pick and choose, is without any merit. In the entire pleadings, the petitioner has not attributed any motive to the respondent-authorities, involved in the selection process. In the absence of any pleadings in regard thereto, this Court cannot intervene and record any finding as regards the selection process being vitiated by malafides. Merely, on account of the fact that the petitioner has been awarded 0.25 marks out of the total 4 marks, cannot form the basis of holding the selection process to be arbitrary and illegal.

The contention raised by the petitioner at the stage of arguments that no question was asked at the stage of interview, is beyond the pleadings on record. Such argument does not derive any strength from the averments made in the petition. It is a submission that has been raised for the first time only at the stage of argument and as such cannot be considered.

Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, would himself concede that the ground of not having awarded 5 additional marks on account of the petitioner belonging to the rural area category would be a non issue as in the advertisement itself, no such marks had been earmarked and neither have any of the selected candidates been awarded marks under such category. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.