SHRI KANWAR SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

                                  SHRI KANWAR SINGH                                     A
                                              V.

                            STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
      \
                                      MARCH 3, 1997

                     [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]                              B

                Service Law :

                 Selection-Assistant Sub-Inspecto,.-Appellant earlier temporarily
          promoted to the post but later revertecf-Se/ection for the posts conducted on C
          the basis of sum of marks obtained in written examination and intervie~Ap­
          pellant not selected as he could not secure good marks in intervie~Writ
          petition of appellant cO/ltending that he should have been given weightage for
          his experience dismissed by High Court-Held, High Court was right in
          holding that it was a competition open to all and by f drtuitous circumstance
          of previous temporary promotion separate marks could not be allocated in D
          which event such persons would st.ea/ a march over others-No allegation of
          ma/a fide or arbitrariness in selection was made-17iere is no illegality in the
          judgment of High Court wa"anting interference.
 •.
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)               E
          No. 5567 of 1997.

               From the Judgment and Order dated 1.10.96 of the Punjab &
          Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 15380 of 1996.

                Arvind Jain and Cham Nirwani for the Petitioner.                        F
                The following Order of the Court was delivered :

                Delay condoned.

               This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Division G
          Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, made on October 1, 1996
          in CWP No. 15380/96.

--             Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted on an earlier occasion
          temporarily, as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the year 1988 but ultimately the
          same came to be challenged and was set aside by an order of this Court.       H
                                             617
    618                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1997] 2S.C.R.

A Thereafter, as per the directions of this Court, written examination and
    interview were conducted. In the written examination, the petitioner
    secured 105 marks. Subordinate Service Selection Board has allotted
    75% of the marks to the written test and 25%of marks to the interview.
    The petitioner having secured 105 marks, could not be selected since
B   he could not make up. in the interview. As many as 97 candidates were
    selected. The_ petitioner having remained unsuccessful, filed writ peti-
    tion in the High Court challenging the selection process. He contended
    that since he had previous experience, some weightage would have
    been given out of 25% marks on the basis of the previous experience.
    However, since no consideration in that behalf was given, the selection
C   was bad in law. The High Court has pointed out and, in our view rightly,
    that its a competition open to all the persons. By fortuitous circumstan-
    ces of the previous temporary promotion, separate marks could not be
    allocated for the previous service in which event such persons will
    steal a march over the other candidates in the open competition. The
D   view taken by the High Court is clear, justifiable and well founded.
    The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the persons
    who secured 80 marks in written examination have been selected by
    granting full 25% of the marks while the petitioner who secured 105
    marks in the written examination could not be selected by being given
    some weightage out of 25% marks allotted for interview. As a conse-
E   quence, the selection is arbitrary. The learned counsel seeks to place
    before us the list of such candidates who secured 80 marks, said to
    have been published by the Board. Since the document had not been
    made part of the record in the High Court, we cannot look into the
     document. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had raised this
F    point in the High Court and the High Court has failed to consider it.
     On the other hand, the High Court has pointed out thus :

            "Records now before us show that the petitioner did not do fairly
            well to get high marks at the interview. Consequently, persons who
            got similar marks as that secured by the petitioner in the written
G           test, got higher rank by virtue of the marks secured by them at the
            interview. Marks in the written test together with that obtained at
            the interview decided the rank in the select list."

          It indicates that the High Court has considered the record of the
H Selection Board placed before it and on comparative evaluation of the
                             KANWARSINGHv. STATE                           619

     candidates who secured combined marks in the written test as well as in A
      the interview, 97 candidates were selected on the basis of the merit. The
     '.High Court has pointed out that no allegation of ma/a fides or arbitrariness
     of selection was made. Under these circumstances, we do not find any
     illegality in the judgment of the High Court warranting interference.

            The special leave petition is dismissed.                              B

     R.P.                                                   Petition dismissed.




--