Brijesh Kumar, J. - (1.) THE above noted appeals involve a common question of law, hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. THEre may be some minor differences here and there on facts but without effecting the main question involved, hence for the purposes of dealing with the matter, we refer to the facts in Civil Appeal Nos.2305-06/1999. THE main question for our consideration in these appeals is as to whether it was competent for the Punjab Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') to resort to screening test with a view to shortlist the number of candidates to bring it to the ratio of three to five candidates per vacancy and further, whether keeping in view the efficiency required for the services in respect of which selection and appointments was to be made, could a written test be held to fix some minimum cut off marks, where process of selection was by interview of eligible candidates belonging to reserve category.
(2.) THE High Court, in the judgments impugned in the above noted appeals, held that the action of the Commission in holding the screening test and prescribing the minimum qualifying marks was unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. Hence, gave a direction that the Commission would interview the petitioners if not already interviewed and declare the result of the selection as per their merit within the time specified. THE Commission has preferred the above noted appeals along with the State of Punjab as one of the appellants. THE main thrust of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission is that the Commission is a constitutional and independent authority and it is its duty to make an endeavour to secure efficiency in the public administration by selecting the suitable candidates for the public services. While discharging such a duty, it is submitted that it would not be sub- servient to the direction of the government unless permissible under the law. Thus, to the extent indicated above, there may be some conflict in the stand between the State Government and the Commission. But both are impleaded as appellants, the lead was taken by the learned counsel appearing for the Commission, who virtually, alone made his submissions. The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement No.4 of 1997 was issued by the Commission for recruitment of 500 Medical Officers in P.C.M.S. (Class-1). In all 303 Scheduled Castes (General) (for short S.C.) candidates applied. The candidates belonging to other Reserved categories like S.C. (Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs) also applied. The Commission scrutinized the applications and notified to hold a screening test on 28.9.1997 for all categories of candidates. So far S.C. candidates are concerned, out of 303 applications, 279 appeared as S.C. (General) candidates out of which 59 could clear the test. To complete the details of the break-up of the number of seats and reservation etc. it may be indicated that out of 500 vacancies, 125 were reserved for S.C. candidates 50 per cent of which, namely 62 posts for Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs and the remaining for the general category of S.C.s. Only 27 persons belonging to Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs applied out of which only four could clear the test. The Commission fixed 45% cut-off marks for general category candidates and 40% cut off marks for S.C. candidates for their consideration for the selection. The prescribed mode of selection was only interview of eligible candidates on the basis of their educational qualifications. The State Government has issued instructions vide letters dated 14.5.1969 and 5.5.1970, indicating the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to hold a test viz. where the number of candidates in the reserved category is more than the number of seats available, a competitive test could be held but no test is to be held where the number of candidates available may be equal or less than the number of the seats. The letters dated 14th May, 1969 and 5th May, 1970 issued by the Punjab Government are quoted below: JUDGEMENT_732_SUPREME6_2003Html1.htm JUDGEMENT_732_SUPREME6_2003Html2.htm
(3.) THE Resolution of the Public Service Commission upon which main thrust has been provided, reads as follows: JUDGEMENT_732_SUPREME6_2003Html3.htm (Emphasis supplied) THE other resolution on which emphasis has been laid and which is also reflected in the tenor of the arguments of the learned counsel for the Commission, reads as under : "15.4.97 THE Commission placed on record that it is a constitutional and independent authority and plays a pivotal role in selections and appointments of persons to public service. It endeavours to secure efficiency in public administration by selecting suitable persons for appointment of public service. It has to perform its duty in an independent and objective manner without any influence or direction of any other authority. It is not sub- servient to the directions of the Government unless such directions are permissible bylaw. THE Commission is fully competent and duty bound to hold competitive examinations and conduct interviews for selecting suitable candidates as per the criteria fixed by it as long as it does not militate against the law." The High Court, in the impugned judgment, referring to another decision of a Division Bench on the same point in Dr. Lovekesh Kumar and 4 others, and taking into account the facts of the case in hand, came to the conclusion that the decision of the Commission to hold a screening test was discriminatory and arbitrary.;