Manohar Lal vs State of Jammu and Kashmir

T.S. Doabia, J.—The circumstances under which this petition has come to be filed in this court be noticed.

An advertisement notice was issued by Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission. This was published in local News Paper on 19th Nov.

1993. Five posts of Lecturer Economics (10+2) in Schools run by Education Department were to be filled. Three posts were meant for male

candidates and two posts were meant for female candidates. One post for Schedule Caste candidate was reserved. This was to be out of the

quota of male candidates.

It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared in the interview, but was not selected. He submits that nonselection of Scheduled Caste

candidate is violative of Rules known as Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 1994. Reliance is also being placed on some other rules of similar

nature. These are Rules of 1997. It is sought to be contended that the case of the petitioner should have been considered by relaxing the standard.

It is submitted that this aspect of the matter was totally ignored.

Another argument which is raised is that only five vacancies were to be filled. The respondentState has filled four more posts. This was done on

the basis of merit list which was already prepared by the Public Service Commission, Jammu. This is also being challenged. Thus the action of the

respondentauthorities is being challenged interalia on the following grounds :

i. That the petitioner who was member of Schedule Caste should have been considered by relaxing the merit criteria.

ii. That if the additional posts were to be filled, then this should have been advertised and the name of the petitioner should have been considered.

iii. That the rule of carryforward has not been followed by the respondent authorities.

iv. That the allotting of 100 marks to interview is also not in accordance with law.

This court passed an order to the effect that respondentCommission would produce the records. The records have been made available in the

court.

The stand taken by the respondentCommission is that the case of the petitioner was considered after giving relaxation. Even after this exercise the

petitioner did not come high in the merit. It is stated that last candidate obtained 70.36% marks. The marks obtained by the petitioner are only

31.98%. It is further stated that the minimum eligibility criteria for general candidates is fixed 50% of the total marks and in the case candidates

belonging to reserved category, it was fixed at 40%. It is accordingly submitted that even on the basis of relaxed criteria the petitioner did not

come within the minimum eligibility criteria and therefore, he was not selected.

The records produced by the respondentCommission were pursued. It be seen that on account of educational qualification, the petitioner was

given 55.9% marks, but on other parameters, he was unable to make the grade.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that allotting 100 marks for interview is not in accordance with law, as it is made clear

by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported as A.B.S.K. Sangh (Rly.) v. Union of India, A.I.R., 1982 SC 298.

It be seen that petitioner was unable to come up high in the merit list, even though his case was considered by taking into consideration lower

and relaxed standard. As such, on merits, nothing can be said in favour of the petitioner.

Faced with this situation, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged selection criteria also. According to him, the prescription of

100 marks in the interview is not in accordance with law. It be seen that this aspect of the matter has been considered by Supreme Court of India

afresh in the case reported as Siya Ram v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 566 : 1998(1) SCT 319 (SC) . Distribution of marks in the interview

were as under :

(a) Professional ability 50 marks

(b) Personality leadership technical and educational qualification 20 marks

(c) Record of service 15 marks

(d) Seniority 15 marks.

This criteria was found to be good. In para 12, it was observed as under :

In the present case, the appointment was to the post of Chief Personnel Inspector in the Railways. It is a selection post. The Selection Board

consisted of High Ranking officials well versed with the requirements of the post to which promotion was to be made. Norms had been laid for the

Selection Board to follow. No fault can be found with the same. Apart from the objections that excessive marks had been allocated for vivavoce,

the appellant has been unable to point out my illegality or irregularity in the selection process.

Again in Union of India v. N. Chandrasekharan, 1988(3) SCC 694 : 1998(1) SCT 631 (SC); allocation of 50, 30, 20 marks respectively for

written test, interview and confidential record was held to be not contrary to law.

In Mehmood Alam Tariq v. State of Rajasthan, (1998) 3 SCC 241 view expressed is similar. In para 20, it was said :

On a careful consideration of the matter we are persuaded to the view that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks of 60 (33 per cent)

out of the maximum marks of 180 set apart for the viva voce examination does not by itself incur any constitutional infirmity. The principles laid

down in the cases of Ajay Hasia, Lila Dhar, Ashok Kumar Yadav do not militate against or render impermissible such a prescription. There is

nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in the stipulation that officers to be selected for higher services and who are, with the passage of time (expected)

to man increasingly responsible positions in the core services such as the Administrative Services and the Police Service should be men endowed

with personality traits conducive to the levels of performance expected in such services. There are features that distinguish for instance, Accounts

Service from the Police Service a distinction that draws upon and is accentuated by the personal qualities of the officer. Academic excellence is

one thing. Ability to deal with the public with tact and imagination is another. Both are necessary for an officer. The dose that is demanded may

vary according to the nature of the service. Administrative and police service constitute the cutting edge of the administrative machinery and the

requirement of higher traits of personality is not an unreasonable expectation.

In the face of above judicial pronouncements, this petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.