SHIVARAJ V.PATIL, J. - (1.) These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 4 -1 -2001 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The controversy relates to selection/non -selection of candidates to the posts of Assistant District Transport Officer (for short 'ADTO'). The Punjab Subordinate Selection Board advertised 12 posts of ADTO.s on 15 -5 -1995. Out of them, 7 posts were for the general category, 4 for SC/ST and one was reserved for ex -servicemen. A written test was conducted on 24 -3 -1996, the result of which was declared on 1 -4 -1998, declaring 78 persons successful. Out of these 78 persons, 61 belonged to general category, 15 belonged to SC/ST category and 2 belonged to category of ex -servicemen. Later, on 22 -4 -1998, 40 more candidates were declared successful by lowering the standard. Out of these 40 candidates, 21 belonged to general category, 13 to SC/ST category and 6 to ex -servicemen category. Criteria for selection were framed on 22 -4 -1998; final result was declared on 15 -5 -1998 and the appointment were made on 18 -5 -1998. Out of the candidates selected and appointed, 6 were from the general category, 3 were from SC/ST and 1 from ex -servicemen category. Out of the 78 candidates whose result was declared on 1 -4 -1998, 4 candidates belonging to general category were selected. However, out of 40 candidates whose result was declared later, 2 candidates belonging to general category were selected. The appellants in these appeals approached the High Court by filing writ petitions for quashing the select list of the candidates published by the authorities in Tribune dated 23 -5 -1998, for issuing writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider their claim on the basis of their merit from amongst the candidates originally invited for interview and to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from giving effect to the selection made. It may be mentioned here itself that the selected candidates were appointed on 18 -5 -1998 and having joined the services, they are continuing in service. The High Court considering the rival contentions on their relative merits and after perusing the records did not find any merit in the writ petitions. Consequently, they were dismissed by the impugned common order. Hence, these appeals.
(2.) Appellant No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 812 of 2002 argued his case as party -in -person and submissions were made by the learned counsel on behalf of the other appellants. We may make it clear at the outset that none of the appellants belonged to the category of either SC/ST or ex -servicemen and their claim is also not against these categories. Hence, we consider it unnecessary to consider the validity of selection of the candidates made in these two categories. In other words, we confine our consideration to the validity of selection of the candidates made in the general category. Mainly, the submissions made on behalf of the appellants were that after declaration of the result of the written examination on 1 -4 -1998, standard could not have been lowered for making other 40 candidates eligible for the purpose of interview; criteria could not have been framed after declaration of result of the written examination; maximum 21 candidates could have been called for interview in the ratio of 1:3 in the general category on the basis of the merit of the written examination whereas out of 78 candidates whose result was declared on 1 -4 -1998, more than 60 candidates were from the general category. In this regard, reliance was placed on Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.
(3.) Learned Additional Solicitor General and learned senior counsel for the respondents at the outset submitted that they have preliminary objection for The very entertaining of these appeals and considering the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants on merits having regard to their conduct. According to them, the appellants made deliberate misrepresentation with regard to the allocation of marks stating that 150 marks were for the written test and 100 marks for interview. Further, mala fides were attributed to authorities on the basis of the relation and political influence, which they gave it up before the High Court but again reiterated in the SLPs. According to the learned counsel, these two grounds are good enough to dismiss the appeals by revoking leave granted without examining them on merits. Although, we find justification in these submissions but having heard the parties at length, we consider these appeals on the merits of the contentions as well. On behalf of the respondents, further submissions were made explaining the criteria fixed, in what circumstances, more number of candidates were called for interview and how the selection made was fair and proper. According to them, mere calling more number of candidates for interview did not vitiate the selection made having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case; at any rate, the appellants being lower in merit, even otherwise, could not get any benefit. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the impugned judgment of the High Court is perfectly valid and justified. They also submitted that pursuant to the selection made, the selected non -official respondents have been continuing in service since May, 1998, i.e., they are continuing in service for about 5 years by now and as such these are not the fit cases for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.;