Holding

The Board’s merit‑based selection procedure, including the requirement of minimum viva‑voce marks, is valid and there is no automatic right to regularisation for the appellant.

Summary

The appellant, Satyapal Singh, a 40% disabled ex‑serviceman, was appointed on an ad‑hoc basis as Technical Tracer and was recommended by the Haryana Rajya Sainik Board for regular appointment. The Haryana State Subordinate Services Selection Board, however, did not recommend his regularisation because he failed to obtain the minimum marks prescribed for the viva‑voce component of the selection process. The appellant contended that, under Government of Haryana instructions of 1972, a candidate whose name had been sponsored and for whom a vacancy existed was entitled to automatic regularisation. The respondents argued that the Board was authorized to apply a merit‑based criterion, including minimum viva‑voce marks, as per the 1979 instructions and its own resolutions. The Supreme Court held that the Board’s merit‑based procedure was justified and that no automatic right to regularisation existed; the appellant could not be recommended because he did not meet the required marks. The Court directed that the appellant may continue in the post pending the next regular recruitment and that his name be placed again among candidates at that time. The appeal was allowed in this limited respect.

Issues considered

Whether a disabled ex‑serviceman whose name has been sponsored by the Sainik Board and for whom a vacancy exists has an automatic right to regularisation.
Whether the Haryana State Subordinate Services Selection Board can impose a merit‑based selection criterion, including minimum viva‑voce marks, for regularisation of disabled ex‑servicemen.
Whether the Board’s procedure under the 1979 instructions and its resolutions is valid and fair.

Subjects

service lawregularisationdisabled ex‑servicemanmerit selectionad‑hoc appointmentreservationviva voceHaryanaSubordinate Services Selection Board

Judgment

A SATYAPAL SINGH
v.
THE HARYANA STATE SUBORDINATE
SELECTION BOARD AND ORS.

APRIL 7, 1994
B
(K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

Service law : Civil Services-Haryana State Subordinate Services-
Regularisation-Disabled-Ex-serviceman persons-Held, there is no auto-
C matic right of regularisation for such persons appointed in ad hoc
capacity-Adoption of merit criterion held justified and fair-Instrnctions of
Government of Haryana dated 6th March 1972 and 21st May 1979--fi.esolu-
tion of Haryana State Subordinate Services Selection Board dated 1st Sep-
tember, 1991.

D The Appellant, an ex-serviceman, was disabled to the extent or 40%.
He was appointed as 'Technical Tracer' on an ad hoc basis and his name
was recommended by the Chairman, Rajya Sainik Board, Haryana for
absorption as a regular candidate. The Subordinate Services Selection
Board, however, did not recommend bis name for regular appointment.
E He filed a Writ Petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was
dismissed. He thereafter appealled to this Court by Special Leave.

The main contention or the Appellant was that under the instruc-
tions dated 6 March, 1972 issued by the Government or Haryana, once a
name bad been sponsored by the Sainik Board, an ad hoc appointment
F was made by the employer and when the name had been recommended to
the Subordinate Services Selection Board for regularisation, be was en-
titled to regularisation as a matter or course and right, so long as a
vacancy existed and a person with disability between 20% and 50% was
available. The Respondent Board, however, contended that a merit
G criterion had been adopted for the purpose or regularisation and since the
Appellant did not secure the minimum marks prescribed ror the viva voce
be could not be recommended.

Disposing or the appeal with directions, this Court

H HELD : 1. The procedure adopted by the Board is well justified and
412
SATYAPAL v. SOBORDINATESELECTIONBOARD 413

fair. The procedure adopted for awarding minimnm marks is also a just A
and fair procedure for selecting the candidates and recommending them
for regularisation. Since the appellant did not secure the minimum of the
marks prescribed for the viva voce obviously the Board could not select
him and recommend him for regular absorption. The contention that the
regularisation should be antomatic and as of right since there is no other B
candidate available from handicapped quota is untenable. [415·A, F, GI

2. Since the Court had, by an order dated January 3, 1994 stated that
if there was any vacancy on which he had beeu working as represented by
the appellant, it will be open to the Respondents to allow him to continue
in the post (and he has in fact been continuing as such), till the regular C
selection for absorption is made, it is open to the Respondents to continue
him till a regular candidate is available. At the time of regular recruitment
to the post, the Respondents wculd sponsor bis name also along with other
candidates for being considered afresh. (415-G:H; 416-A·B)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3917 of D
1994.
\)
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.8.93 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in C.W.P. No.15310 of 1993.
' D.S. Bali, S. Srinivasan and Rajesh K Sharma for the Appellants. E

Pardeep Gupta and K.K. Mohan for the Respondents.

Ms. Indu Malhotra and Dania Pradhan for State.

'(
The following Order of the Court was delivered : F
'
Leave granted.

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in C.W.P. No. 15310/93
dated August 3, 1993 dismissing the writ petition in limine .. The appellant G
is an ex-serviceman, served in the Army and was disabled to the extent of
40%. He was a "Technical Tracer". He was appointed on an ad hoc basis
~ on November 8, 1991. His name was recommended by Chairman, Rajya
Sainik Board, Haryana for absorption as a regular candidate. The Subor·
dinate Service Se.lection Board for short the Board while considering his H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 3 S.C.R.

A case along with the children of the deceased disabled person selected ...
respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and the case of the appellant was not recommended.
Calling in question of his non-selection, the appellant filed the writ petition,
as said it came to be dismissed. The case of the appellant is based on the
instructions issued by the Govt. of Haryana dated March 6, 1972 wherein
it was stated that as and when vacancy reserved for ex-serviceman arises,
B intimation will be sent to the employment exchange which would indicate
that a disabled ex-serviceman between 20% and 40% disability and the
dependent of those killed/disabled beyond 50% in action would be recom-
mended for the post. The name of the candidates who are available in the
employinent exchange and with the R.S. Board in their absence wonld be
c recommended to the Board, criteria 3 postulates as nnder :

"The appointment of disabled ex-serviceman (disability between
20% to 50%) and of the dependents of those killed in the first
instance and later their cases will be referred to the Haryana
Subordinate Services Selection Board for regular appointment".
D
Based thereon, contention has been raised by the learned Advocate
for the appellant that once the name has been sponsored by the Sainik
Board and the employer made an ad hoc employment and recommended
to the Board for regularisation, so long as there exists a vacancy and a
E person who sW:fers disability between 20% to 50% is available, he. is
entitled to be· regularised as of course and right. The Board in its counter
stated that the Govt. had adopted merit criteria in the instructions issued
by tbe Govt. on May 21, 1979 that for Class I and Class II posts for tbe ex-
servicemen would be reserved at 5% and for Class lII and Class IV posts
F 25% were to be reserved for the candidates who are found to be suitable
for recruitment. In the fust instance, the disabled ex-·servicemen would be
considered for recruitment on merit and in the absence of their availability,
the children of the disabled ex-servicemen would be considered. The Board
prescn"bed two modes i.e. written test and viva voce or viva voce alone and
the claims of all the persons would be considered acrording to tbe above
G procedure. The procedure prescribed by the second category, namely, that
if the selection is only by viva voce, 20% of the marks was prescribed for
the viva voce and, a candidate is required to get minimum marks for
selection. In another resolution the Board had adopted, for considering the '·
claims for selection of the candidates only by viva vice, allocation of marks •
H for each criteria ie. qualifications, higher qualifications, experience, sport,<;,
(~

SATYAPAL v. SOBORDJNATESELECTION BOARD 415

·'.. special knowledge of the subject etc. and viva vice. The appellant did not A
secure the minimum of the 5 marks prescribed for the viva voce as result
he could not be recommended for regularisation. We find that the proce-
dure adopted by the Board is well justified and fair.

In the resolution passed by the Board on September 15, 1991 as
stated earlier, they adopted criteria in two ways: where is a written ex- B
amination followed by viva voce, they prescribed 12-1/2% of the total marks
for interview; where the selection is only by viva voce, they prescribed
various marks for qualifications, etc. enumerated hereinbefore and with
regard to the viva voce marks the candidate is required to secure minimum
as stated under : c
'1n case of second method of selection, i.e. selection by holding
interviews only, the Board resolves that the candidates of E.S.M.
category who obtain :

More than 5 marks out of 20 marks fixed for viva voce; D
•
<
' More than 6 marks out of 21-30 marks fixed for viva voce;
"\
' More than 7 marks out of 31-40 marks fixed for viva voce;

More than 8 marks out of 41-50 marks fixed for viva voce; E
More than 10 marks out of 51-60 marks fixed for viva voce;

will become suitable for the purpose of recommendation."

Thus the procedure adopted for minimum marks is also just and fair F
procedure in selecting the candidates and for recommending the can-
didates for regularisation. Since the appellant did not secure minimum of
the marks prescribed for viva voce obviously the Board could not select
him and recommend him for regular absorption. The contention, therefore,
that the regularisation should be automatic, and as of right since there is G
no other candidate available from handicapped quota of first category, is
untenable.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is one
post still vacant, unfilled and that he has been working in the post. When
the matter had come up for admission such a representation was in fact H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 3 S.C.R.

A made and by an order dated January 3, 1994 this Court stated that if there ~·
is any such vacancy it will be opeti to the respondents to allow the appellant
to continue in the post. It is stated that he has been continuing as such.
Under these circumstances till the regular selection for absorption is
made, it is open to the respondents to continue the petitioner till the
regular candidate is ~vailable. If the petitioner is again sent for at the time
B of the regular recruitment to the post, has to be made, it is needless to
mention, that the respondent would sponsor the name of the petitioner also
along· with other candidates for being considered afresh. The appeal is
.accordingly allowed only to the above extent and a direction is issued.

Rule nisi is 'made absolute. No costs.

R.R. Appeal disposed of.

l

\.