Supreme Court of India

HARJINDER SINGH SODHIversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS,.

Citation: 1996 INSC 1095
Decided: 23 September 1996
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG B PATTANAIK

Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the PPSC’s 50‑50 mark allocation and the government’s decision not to consider later vacancies were lawful and not arbitrary.

Summary

Harjinder Singh Sodhi challenged his non-selection to the Punjab Civil Services Executive Branch, arguing that the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) failed to properly assess merit, that the government falsely claimed no vacancy existed, and that the 50% weight given to interview marks was arbitrary, especially since no written examination was held. The Supreme Court examined these contentions, noting that merit needed to be considered only among candidates for the nine posts that arose in 1991 and that the government was correct in not considering later vacancies. It also held that the 50-50 split between record and interview marks was not arbitrary under existing law. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the PPSC’s and government’s actions and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

Issues considered

Whether the Punjab Public Service Commission was required to re‑evaluate the petitioner’s merit against other candidates after the Supreme Court’s earlier direction.
Whether the allocation of 50% of marks to the interview and 50% to the record, without a written examination, is arbitrary and violative of law.
Whether the government’s statement that no additional vacancy existed was false and should affect the selection process.

Subjects

service lawpublic service commissionselection processmerit assessmentinterview markswritten examinationarbitrarinessPunjab Civil Servicesspecial leave petition

Judgment

A·                         HARJINDER SINGH SODHI
                                           v.
                          STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS,.

                               SEPTEMBER 23, 1996

B               (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

           Se1vice Law:

         : Punjab Civil SelVices Executive Branch-Selection to-Public SelVice
C Commission and Govemment applying the plinciple of 50% marks for the
     record and 50% for the inte1View-Held: Since no wlitten examination was
     conducted for consideration of the claims of candidates, the principle adopted
     is not arbitrmy-Govemment rightly did not consider the case for selection for
     subsequent vacancies which would .affect the candidates who qualified later.

D         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
     No.14737 of 1996.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.96 of the Punjab &
     Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4882 of 1995.

E          Arvind Kr. Shukla and Irshad Ahmad for the Petitioner.

           The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          This special leave petition is filed against the order of the Division
  Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court made on January 29, 1996
f in W.P. No. 4882/95. No doubt, pursuant to the direction issued by this
  Court on the earlier occasion on November 25, 1994, the case of the
  petitioner was considered but he was not selected by the Punjab Public
  Service Commission to Punjab Civil Services Executive Branch. Three
  contentions have been raised by the learned counsel· for the petitioner             .,
  firstly, that when this Court had directed to consider the case of the
G Petitioner vis-a-vis others, the Public Servic~ Commission should have
  evaluated the respective merit and found' whether the petitioner is more
  meritorious over those persons but that was not done. We find no force in
  the contention. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Public Service
  Commission in the High Court in which it was pointed out that the relevant
H merit of the 12th respondent vis-a- vis the petitioner was considered and
                                         660
                          H.S. SODHI v. STATE                        661

she was found to be more meritorious. The second contention was that the A
Public Service Commission having found him eligibile, called on the
government to find whether there is an additional vacant post which would
show that petitioner was more meritorious. There was an additional post
vacant but the Government had given false statement that the post was not
available. We find no force in the contention. Admittedly, having been
                                                                            B
sought for nomination to the posts available in 1991, merit has to be
considered only among the candidates for appointment to nine posts arose
in 1991. Therefore, Government have rightly did not consider the case for
selection for subsequent vacancies which would effect the candidates who
became qualified later. It is then contended that 50% of the marks were
allotted to the interview and 50% marks were allotted for the record.       c
Allotment of 50% for interview is arbitrary in view of the law laid down by
this Court. We find no force in the contention. It is not the case that any
written examination was conducted for consideration of the claims of the
parties. Accordingly, the Public Service Commission and the Government
have applied the principle of keeping 50% marks for the record and 50% D
for the interview. Under those circumstances, we do not find any illegality
in the order passed by the High Court.

       The SLP is accordingly dismissed.

G.N.                                                  Petition dismissed.
                                                                            E

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service law"Sign in to search