Suresh Kumar vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The candidature of the petitioners has been ruled out of consideration through the process of short listing of candidates against 150 posts of Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services to be filled through an examine on conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission under Advertisement No. 5 of 2011. The petitioners applied for the post and appeared in the preliminary examination held by the Commission on 25.3.2012. The result of the examination was declared on 4.5.2012. As per the aforesaid advertisement, 99 posts are reserved for general 29 for SC, 14 for BC, 8 for ESM and 1 for the physically handicapped category respectively. The petitioners belong to the reserved category of either scheduled caste, backward class or ex-serviceman which represent both vertical and horizontal reservation.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the result has been declared category wise and the reserved category candidates who have secured more marks in the last open merit candidate are restricted inter se to their own categories. The grievance has been raised in the background of the preliminary examination. The final examination is yet to be held. The petitioners unable to secure justice from the respondents, and feeling aggrieved, approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 24652 of 2012. It was their case in the earlier litigation that while preparing the result of the preliminary examination, the Commission has not taken into consideration the fact that those candidates who belonged to reserved category and secured marks higher than general category candidates have been excluded from the reserved category and only thereafter, a separate list for reserved category candidates has to be prepared of the remaining number. This action of the Commission was castigated as bad and not in accordance with the law laid down by the division bench of this Court in CWP No. 12275 of 2007; Neelam Rani v. State of Punjab and others decided on 8.1.2010 as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 976 of 2009, Bihari Lal Rada v. Anil Jain (Timi) and others decided on 13.2.2009; (2009) 4 SCC 1. Since there was no final opinion expressed by the Commission, this Court vide order dated 12.12.2012 directed the Commission to decide the representation of the petitioners. In compliance of the direction of this Court, the impugned order dated 8.2.2013 has been passed by the Commission. Their claim has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the rule of reservation whether vertical or horizontal is to be operated only at the stage of final selection which is yet to happen. The reason given in the impugned order is that the preliminary examination was only meant for short listing candidates category wise for the main written examination to be held subsequently. The process of short listing was adopted because of the unmanageably large number of applications received.

The Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 provide in Rule 11, three stages of the examination (1) preliminary examination (for screening only) (II) main written examination and (III) personality test/interview. The preliminary examination is in the nature of a screening test used as a qualifier for the final assault in the pursuit of appointment. The total number of the candidates to be admitted to the main written examination shall be 15 times the number of advertised vacancies. The total number of candidates qualifying in the main examination to be called for Vive-Voce is to be three times the number of the advertised vacancies. Besides, it has been urged in defence that the merit of candidates in the preliminary examination is not to be taken into consideration for determining the merit of a candidate at the time of selection. The final selection is based on merit where the principles laid down in Indra Sawhney etc. etc Vs. Union of India and others, etc. etc., and R.K. Sabharwal and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, are to be applied where the reserved category candidates like the petitioners would have a right to be considered against the general category seats on their own merit. It has been stated that the Commission has been following this process and have consistently applied the principles of short listing for selection in the HCS (EB) in the year 2003 and 2009 which attracts voluminous applications for the premier service under the State. The candidates have to qualify in their own category at the stage of short listing through preliminary examination.

This is to bring out the best talent. Lastly, it has been reasoned in the impugned order that the Haryana Government instructions dated 25.6.1997 apply at the stage of drawing up the final merit and for recommending the names for appointment to Government.

In Neelam Rani (supra), this Court considered two issues: (I) whether separate cadre for men in service i.e. Punjab State Education Class IIII (Rules) Cadre Service Rules, 1978 is discriminatory and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and (II) whether such cadre will include women as well to avoid vice of discrimination prohibited under Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

The Court was called upon to consider classification between male and female candidates. The judgment in Bihari Lal Rada (supra) deals with elections to the municipal council, Hisar where certain wards were reserved for members belonging to scheduled castes and backward class category. The matter of reservation of wards may be inappropriate in the context of the present case which deals with public appointments. In any case, this case also does not involve short-listing of candidates. The Commission in its order impugned in this petition has pointed to the selection of Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) preliminary examination where this Court on its administrative side declared the result of the candidates in their own category i.e. SC/BC etc. The petitioners cannot complain of prejudice if the screening test has been confined in the manner done. The advertisement (P-1) clearly reflects the real position that the preliminary examination comprising an objective type multiple choice test is for screening purposes only. When the preliminary examination is based on an objective type multiple choice question paper, none can complain that they have been unfairly dealt with. The purpose of competition at the stage of preliminary examination is to take the best in each category and take the result forward for the final examination which alone will govern ultimate selection. It is in fact a misnomer to use the word ''merit'' for screening test. Merely because the petitioners have secured more marks than the last general category candidate short listed in the open general category would not give them any vested right at this stage for selection and appointment. The marks in the preliminary examination are not to be counted for the purpose of drawing up merit. The object of this screening test is to take out the best in each category and then put all the categories together in the melting pot of final selection. For the reasons aforestated, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Commission declining the representations of the petitioners. No ground is made out for interference.

Resultantly, the petition fails and is dismissed.