Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
HARJINDER SINGH SODHI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/09/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
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 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 the
Court had directed to consider the case of the petitioner
vis-a-vis others, the Public Service Commission should have
evaluated the respective merit and found whether the
petitioner is more meritorious over those persons but that
was 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 merit of the 12th respondent vis-a-vis the
petitioner was considered and she was found to be more
meritorious. The second contention was that the Public
Service Commission having found him eligible, 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
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. 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%
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.