KASLIWAL - (1.) THIS appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 3/06/1988 (reported in AIR 1988 Punj and Har 298) (FB). The Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana by an advertisement dated 7/08/1985 invited applications for the posts of Excise Inspectors in the Excise and Taxation Department. Originally the number of posts was 11 but was subsequently raised to 15. These posts of Excise Inspectors are governed by the Haryana ' Excise and Taxation Inspectorate (State Service, Class III) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It was further provided in the Rules that no candidate shall be deemed to have qualified for viva voce unless he obtains a minimum of 33 Per Cent marks in each paper and 40 Per Cent in aggregate. There was, however, no minimum marks for the viva voce. The total marks of the written papers and viva voce was to determine rank of the candidate.
(2.) THE Selection Board held a written test on 23/24-11-1985. THE result of the written test was declared on 15-1-1986. THE appellants were declared successful in the written test and were placed at SI. Nos. 5 and 7 respectively in the general category. According of to the Rules following were the papers of the examination JUDGEMENT_686_1_1991Html1.htm General knowledge - 100 Marks Viva Voce - 100 Marks. 3. According to the appellants, successful candidates in the written test were interviewed on 12-3-1986. The appellants were also interviewed along with others. After waiting for some time, the appellants represented to the Selection Board for the declaration of the result. As there was unusual delay in the declaration of the results, the appellants and three others filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh seeking a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the competition held for the posts of Excise Inspectors. A notice of motion was issued and a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1. In the reply a plea was taken that 283 candidates were interviewed by the Selection Board but the result of 48 candidates was prepared. The correctness of this statement was doubted by the Motion Bench which by its order dated 9/12/1986 summoned the then Chairman of the Selection Board. On 9/01/1987 Col. Bhim Singh, Chairman of the Selection Board appeared and he was directed to file an affidavit. Col. Bhim Singh filed the affidavit on 10-1-1987. In the affidavit it was stated that the Board called'290 candidates, out of which 283 appeared for interview during the period 10th March to 13th March, 1986. This was as per the practice of the Board. The Board called all the candidates for interview who qualified in the written test. The Board compiled results of viva voce in respect of all the 283 candidates, who appeared for interview. As per practice till the completion of interview the Board was not informed of the marks obtained by each candidate in the written test. It was further stated in the affidavit that on completion of interviews the Board having gone through the documents i.e. written test result and the viva voice results, came to the conclusion that it will be redundant to go below aparticular figure in the written test as viva voce and the written'test marks were to be added to get the final selection list. It was also stated in paras 6, and 7 of the affidavit as under: 6. That the Board then directed the Secretary, Subordinate Services Selection Board to produce list of candidates of various categories i.e. General, Scheduled Caste, Backward Caste and Ex-Servicemen. In this the Board directed the Secretary to produce lists of 3 times of the number of vacancies as per the ruling given by the Supreme Court and the practice followed by the Haryana Public Service Commission. The Board also awarded viva voce marks out of 12.5 Per Cent of the written marks again as per practice followed by Haryana Public Service Commission and the ruling of the Supreme Court. Having seen the written marks the Board was satisfied that no injustice was done to candidates who stood lower than three times of the number of vacancies and their inclusion in the final list would have been an exercise in futility. 7. The Board finally recommended for appointment of 6 candidates out of 19 candidates in the general categorv 5 candidates out of 15 in the Scheduled Caste, one candidate out of 3 in Backward Caste and 3 out of 11 candidates in the Ex-servicemen category. 4. The appellants sought permission of the Court to amend the petition and the prayer was allowed. In the amended petition a plea was taken that according to the Rules the marks for the written test were 250 while those for the viva voce were 100 i.e. 40 Per Cent of the written test marks have been kept for the viva voce test, It may be noted that the appellants wrongly calculated the viva voce marks as 40 Per Cent because percentage of viva voce marks has to be calculated out of total marks and not merely written test marks. Thus 100 marks for viva voce on!. of the total marks 350 will come to 28.5 Per Cent . The appellants also mentioned in the amended petition that the award of interview marks up to 40 Per Cent (118.5 Per Cent of the total marks) of the written test marks is absolutely arbitrary and is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Asbok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 Supp SCR 657: (AIR 1987 SC 454). Even in the selection to the I.A.S. the Union Public Service Commission awards interview marks out of 12.2 Per Cent of the written test marks.
(3.) IT has been sbmitted that the Selection Board had already interviewed the candidates by following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadavs case and the appellants were put in the select list. The Selection Board however decided that all the candidates who had qualified in the written examination of the Excise Inspectors may be reinterviewed as the requirement of the Rules had not been properly followed in respect of allotting of marks in the viva voce and also not prepared the results of the candidates who appeared for interview before the previous Board. According to the appellants this decision was wholly illegal. The action of the Board in seeking to reintrview all the 290 candidates was abundantly illegal. Further, the basis on which reinterview was sought to be held was again contrary to the law laid down by this Court. The appellants thus challenged the action'of the respondents in not declaring the result according to the first interview and its decision to reinterview all the applicants by keeping 100 marks for viva voce which was 28.5 Per Cent of the total marks as illegal and unconstitutional. The respondents in the reply submitted that the affidavit by Col. Bhim Singh, the then Chairman of the Board was against the Rules applicable to the services and those Rules had been upheld by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court. It was further stated in the reply that from the record of the answering respondents it was nowhere mentioned that the previous Board took the decision that marks of the viva voce will be awarded to the candidates in view of Ashok Kumar Yadavs case (AIR 1987 SC 454). Ashok Kumar Yadav's case had no application to the selecion made by the answering respondents and it was so held by the Full Bench of the High Court (reported in AIR 1988 Punj and Har 298). The affidavit of the then Chairman was not supported by the office record and as such the same is not helpful to the petitioners for. the decision of the writ petition. During the course of arguments before this Court Mr. Mahabir Singh learned counsel for respondents fairly and candidly conceded that the first interview had been made an the basis of Ashok Kumar Yadavs case, by taking 12.2 Per Cent marks for viva voce examination instead of 28.5 Per Cent and the appellants had been put in the select list.;