Sanjay Rishishwer and Others vs State of M.P. and Others

Hon''ble Shri S.C. Sharma, J.—Regard being had to the similar controversy involved in the aforesaid two cases, they have been heard analogously together. The facts of WP No. 1342/2012 and WP No. 556/2012 are narrated as under:-

The petitioners before this Court who are working as Police Constables have filed this present petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to produce the entire record relating to the selection process which took place for the post of Subedar, Sub-Inspector and Platoon Commander. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of select list published on 30/31.12.2011 Annexure P/3. The petitioners have also prayed before this Court for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to hold fresh interview process by constituting an independent Interview Board.

The petitioner''s contention is that an advertisement was issued by M.P. Professional Examination Board inviting applications from eligible candidates for 515 vacancies of Subedar, Sub-Inspectors and Platoon Commanders and the petitioners submitted their applications in response to the same. It has been further stated that the written examination was comprising of two papers, first paper was in respect of Hindi and English and the second paper was in respect of General Knowledge. It has also been stated that the Physical Test was of 100 marks and the interview was of 50 marks. The petitioner''s contention is that they performed well in the written examination as well as in the Physical Test however, they have been deliberately awarded less marks in the process of selection which took place pursuant to their selection in the process of written as well as the Physical Test. The petitioner''s contention is that they have been awarded less marks by the Interview Board deliberately and, therefore, the entire process of selection deserves to be set-aside. The petitioners have enclosed Annexure P/5 which is a list of about 53 candidates who are members of the Police Department and the contention of learned Senior Counsel is that all the 53 persons have been granted less marks even though they have performed very well in the written examination. It has been argued that on account of a class bias, less marks have been awarded to in service candidates and persons who are from general category have been awarded higher marks in order to eliminate the in service candidates. Another ground has been raised by the petitioners and their contention is that 15% marks were assigned for the interview and the action of the respondents in assigning 15% marks in the process of interview is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Hasia and Others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others, . He also placed reliance on a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, wherein the Apex Court has considered the issue of bias in the process of selection. The petitioners contention is that the Interview Board has deliberately awarded less marks to in-service candidates and the members of the Interview Board have not awarded marks independently to the petitioners and marks have been awarded after arriving at a consensus. It has also been argued before this Court that the marks obtained by a candidate were brought to the notice of the Interview Board and the Interview Board in order to eliminate the in-service candidates have deliberately awarded less marks to the petitioners and to the persons who are identically placed like the petitioner and, therefore, the entire selection stands vitiated. The ground has also been raised that the Professional Examination Board was directed to organise interview division wise however, the same Interview Board has interviewed all candidates who were declared as successful in the written examination as well as in the Physical Test. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the process of interview and their contention is that a fresh interview be directed by this Court.

A reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the respondent/State is that the petitioners did participate in the written examination and they were declared successful in the Physical Test and based upon their performance they were called for interview. It has been categorically stated before this Court by the learned Counsel appearing for respondents that marks obtained by a candidate in the written test and physical test were never brought to the notice of the Interview Board.

Learned Counsel for Professional Examination Board has also drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph 21 wherein it has been stated that the marks obtained by a candidate are not supplied to the Police Department by the M.P. Professional Examination Board.

The contention of the respondent/State is that the Interview Board was constituted by the respondents and as many as 7 IPS Officers were hailing from different places and 6 out of them were having other States as their home states and based upon the performance of candidates marks have been awarded to the petitioners as well as to other candidates belonging to other categories. It has been further stated that the object of interview was to assess the personal suitability of the candidate for the career in Police Service and the Interview Board has assessed each and every candidate accordingly and based upon the performance before the Interview Board after minutely observing each and every candidate marks have been awarded and no element of bias is involved in the process of interview. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

The matter is being disposed of at motion hearing stage itself with the consent of the parties.

In the present case the petitioners before this Court are serving as Police Constables under the Home Department of the State of M.P. It is an admitted fact that an advertisement was issued by M.P. Professional Examination Board inviting applications for the post of Subedar, Sub-Inspector and Platoon Commanders under the Home (Police Department) and an examination took place i.e. Examination 2011. As per the scheme of Examination the written test was comprising of two papers (a) Paper/1 (Hindi and English) Paper/2 General Knowledge. Each paper was of 100 marks and 100 marks were assigned to Physical Test and 50 marks were assigned to the process of interview. The petitioners have appeared in the process of written examination and they have also appeared in the Physical Test and based upon the marks obtained by them in the written examination as well as Physical Test, they were called for interview. The petitioners have enclosed a list of in-service candidates (Constables) and the list contains details of 54 Constables who have received less marks in the process of interview. The respondents have also enclosed details of all such persons who have appeared in the process of interview and the chart prepared by respondents discloses that as many as 616 Police Personnels have appeared and out of 616, 185 Police Personnels have been selected for the post of Platoon Commander, Sub-Inspector and Subedar. The petitioners have enclosed details of only 54 persons out of 616 apparently those who have received less marks only. Details of other persons who have been selected have not been brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioners and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that all Police Personnels were awarded less marks as compared to candidates belonging to general category.

This Court has also carefully gone through the process of recruitment and the Interview Board constituted by the respondents included 7 IPS Officers of the State of M.P. and out of 7 IPS Officers, the home State of only one Officer is M.P. Not only this, out of 7 persons, four are of the rank of IGP and one is of the rank of DGP. There is no personal malafide levelled against them in the present writ petition except for the allegation that they were class bias. There is no substantial material on record to establish that the Officers were having a class bias towards the Constables who have appeared in the process of selection. On the contrary, the chart prepared by the respondents reflect that 36.41% of the selected candidates are Police Personnels who have been finally selected and appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector, Subedar and Platoon Commanders.

In the present case it has been argued that the marks were awarded by the Interview Board after arriving at a consensus. This Court does not find any illegality in case a performance of a candidate is discussed between the members of the Interviewing Board and, therefore, in absence of any malafides as the common exercise was conducted by the Interview Board in respect of in-service candidate as well as in respect of general category candidates, the question of interference with the process of selection does not arise.

In the present case it has also been argued that 50 marks were assigned to the process of interview and the action of respondents is, therefore, contrary to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Hasia (supra). In the case of Ajay Hasia allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for interview was held to be arbitrary and unreasonable. In the present case marks awarded for the interview are approximately 15% and, therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court does not help the petitioners in any manner.

Learned Counsel has vehemently argued there is an element of bias (class bias) in the present case and his contention is that less marks have been awarded to Constables who have participated in the process of selection. It has been argued that the petitioners have secured very good marks in the written as well as in the Physical Test and they have been awarded less marks in the process of interview. This Court has held in the earlier paragraphs about the details of total number of candidates who have appeared in the process of selection and the petitioners have furnished details only in respect of 54 candidates. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) was dealing with a process of appointment by Public Service Commission and it was observed that in case a close relation of some member of PSC is appearing for the interview, the member of the PSC should not take part in the interview and he need not withdraw from the entire process of interview and selection. It was also observed that no man can be a judge in his own cause.

In the present case there is no such bias or malafides alleged by the petitioners. The marks of the written examination as stated by the M.P. Professional Examination Board were not known to the members of the Interview Board and based upon the performance of the candidates, marks have been awarded to the candidates who have appeared before the Interview Board and thereafter as many as 37% of the in-service candidates have been selected in the process of selection.

This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not been able to make out any case for interference in the matter. Resultantly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be retained in the connected Writ Petition No. 1342/2012 and Writ Petition No. 556/2012.