Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SHRI KANWAR SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
This special leave petition arises from the judgment of
the division 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. 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 he could not make up in
the interview. as many as 97 candidates were selected. The
petitioner having remained unsuccessful, filed writ petition
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 was
bad in law, The High court has pointed out and in our view
rightly, that it is a competition open to all the persons.
By fortuitous circumstances 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
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 awarded
some out of 25 marks. As a consequence, 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
he had raised this 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
wall to get high marks at the
interview. consequently, persons
who got similar marks as that
secured by the petitioner in the
written 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 selection Board placed before it and on
comparative evaluation of the candidates who secured
combined marks in the written test as well as in the
interview, 97 candidates were selected on the basis of the
merit, the High court has pointed out that no allegation of
mala 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.