S.C.AGRAWAL, - (1.) THESE appeals, by special leave, have been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 31/10/1991 in Civil Writ Petition No. 5123 of 1991 : (reported in (1992) 1 Serv LR 157) and other connected writ petitions, whereby the High Court has quashed the selection and the recommendation made by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') for appointment on the post of Inspector of Police and the orders for appointment of 18 of the persons selected on the said post.
(2.) THE Board has been constituted under Art. 309 of the Constitution and is vested with the function of selecting and recommending candidates for appointment to Class III non-gazetted posts falling within the purview of the Board. THE post of Inspector of Police is one of the posts falling within the purview of the Board. On 23/10/1987, the Director General of Police had sent a requisition to the Board for selecting suitable candidates for appointment on six posts of Inspectors of Police. In these six posts, one was reserved for Scheduled Castes, two for ex-Servicemen and three were in general category. After the receipt of the said requisition, the Board issued an advertisement dated 22/01/1988 inviting applications for the said posts. On 7/07/1988, a corrigendum was issued to the advertisement dated 22/01/1988. THE advertisement as amended by the said corrigendum stated as under "POSTS OF INSPECTOR OF POLICE FOR POLICE DEPTT. (1 resvd. for SC and 2 for ESM of Haryana) SCALE: Rs. 2000-3200, with rent free accommodation of House rent allowance @ 10% of pay in lieu thereol plus compensation allowance @ 10% of Basic pay as per rules. E.Q.: i) Graduate of recognised University. Preference will be given to Criminology Graduates. 11) Hindi up to Matric standard. iii) Height 5'-7", Chest 33" with expansion of 1-1/2". Due weightage will be given proficiency in sports including athletics, PHC and candidates wearing spectacles, are not eligible. THE candidates will have to pass a written test comprising of the following two papers of 100 marks each:- 1. General English and Hindi of B.A. standard. 2. General Knowledge and General Studies. Only the candidates who will obtain 50% marks and above (at least 40% and above. in case of SC's and BC's candidates), will be called for Physical test and interview. Successful candidates will have to pass one star physical qualifying test as under: JUDGEMENT_377_SUPP4_1993Html1.htm Age : 18-27 years as on 8-8-88, for ESM they must be below 27 years plus continuous services added by 3 years. However, there should not be a gap for more than 2 years between their discharge from the Army and joining the service in Police Deptt. Note: Omitted." The applicants who applied in response to the advertisement were required to undergo the written test. On the basis of the result of the written test candidates were called for physical efficiency and measurement test and viva-voce. Prior to holding the physical efficiency test, the Board took a decision that even those candidates who qualified in 3 out of 5 items of the physical qualifying test mentioned in the advertisement would be deemed to have passed. The Board held the physical efficiency and measurement test as well as interview from 28/01/1991 to Jan 31/01/1991. Prior to that the Director General of Police had, on 24/01/1991, sent a revised requisition for 8 posts of Inspectors of Police (3 general in category, 3 scheduled castes and 2 ex-servicemen). By its letter dated 29/03/1991 addressed to the Director General of Police, the Secretary of the Board forwarded the names of 19 candidates (12 in general category, 2 belonging to scheduled castes, 3 ex-servicemen and 2 belonging to backward classes) who ' re being recommended (in the order of merit categorywise) for appointment to the post.' Since there was an order by the High Court for reserving one post for ex-servicemen, appointments were made of 18 persons on the post of Inspector of Police out of the said list of 19 candidates forwarded by the Board. The appointment orders were issued during the period from 3/04/1991 to Apri 6/04/1991. The said selection and recommendation by the Board and the appointments made pursuant thereto on the post of Inspector of Police were challenged by the various candidates who were not selected by filing writ petitions under Art. 226 in the High Court. The challenge in the writ petitions was made on the grounds that (i) the relaxation in the requirement of passing in all the 5 items prescribed for the physical test was unauthorised and as such illegal; (ii) the number of posts that could be filled could not exceed the number of posts that were advertised; (iii) the number of candidates called for interview could not exceed three times the number of posts that were advertised; (iv) the candidates who had passed the written and the physical test could not be eliminated on the ground that they had misbehaved before the Board at the time of viva-voce and; (v) the selection was liable to be quashed on the ground that the Board was actuated by mala fides and considerations other than pure merit.
(3.) BEFORE the High Court no reply was filed on behalf of the State of Haryana as well as the Board and the Chairman of the Board who was also impleaded as a party in some writ petitions. On behalf of the Director General of Police, Haryana, two replies were filed. One reply, dated May 15, 199 1, was-filed by Shri R. K. Hooda, Director General of Police, Haryana. Subsequently, another reply was filed on 18/08/1991 by Shri B. R. Lall, Inspector General of Police, Haryana on behaff of the Director General of Police. The High Court has pointed out that there is substantial difference in the stand taken by the Director General of Police in the two affidavits. In the earlier reply of Shri R. K. Hooda, it was stated that as on 2/04/1991, there were 20 posts of Inspector of Police available to be filled up by direct recruitment and the Government was justified in making the 19 appointments. In the subsequent affidavit of Shri B. R. Lall, it has been stated that the posts available for direct recruitment were in fact only 8 and that the additional 11 candidates who have been selected were offered appointments against the posts in the Wireless Section which was a separate cadre and that these candidates have not been taken over as the appointment authority in the Wireless Section had objected to their appointments. In the said affidavit, it was also pointed that the break up of the 19 posts now sought to be filled in ought to have been as under General category_____ 10 Ex-service men_____ 3 Scheduled Castes _____ 4 Backward Classes_____ 2 The High Court was of the view that in the advertisement and the corrigendum issued thereafter, it was clearly spelt out that the candidates will have to pass one star physical test in five items and it was, therefore, incumbent upon all the candidates to pass in all five items in order to be eligible for appearing in viva-voce and the Government alone, in case it had the authority to do so, could make a relaxation in the prescribed test and the Board had no jurisdiction to relax the qualifications prescribed by the Government. Relying upon the decision of this Court in District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655, the High Court has held that the authorities were bound by the conditions laid down in the advertisement and the corrigendum and no deviation therefrom was permissible. The High Court rejected the contention that no addition could be made in the qualifications prescribed in R. 12.6 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', in the advertisement. According to the High Court one star physical test has been introduced to evaluate the active habits of the applicants as required under sub-clause (b) of Cl. (2) of R. 12.6 of the Rules, which relates to appointment on the post of Inspector. The High Court observed that this test only supplements the Rules and makes their applicability more uniform and practical and leaves little to the caprice or whims of the selecting agency. The High Court found that out of the 19 candidates selected only 7 candidates has passed in all five tests. As regards the number of posts for which selection could be made by the Board, the High Court has pointed out that the original requisition was for 6 posts which was subsequently revised to 8 and that appointments beyond 8 posts were not legally sustainable. The High Court has further observed that as only 8 posts were liable to be filled in, while calling the candidates for the viva-voce, the Board was entitled to call only thrice the number of vacancies in each category originally requisitioned. As regards rejection of candidates on the ground that they had misbehaved at the time of interview, the High Court, on examining the record, found that some of the candidates who had secured very high marks in the written test and ought to have been selected on the basis of the written test alone, have been eliminated from the panel of selected candidates on the ground that they had misbehaved with the members of the Board at the time of interview. According to the High Court no power has been given to the Board under any rule or instruction to eliminate any person on the basis of misbehaviour in the interview and if the Board found that a candidate had misbehaved at the time of interview it was at liberty to give zero mark to such a candidate and since no minimum marks were prescribed for the viva-voce, the total number of marks obtained ought to have been made the basis of selection. The High Court has further observed that if the power to disqualify is giver to the Board, it would give a complete go by to the principles laid down by this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 : (AIR 1987 SC 454) Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 662 and Vikram. Singh v. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, (1991)ISCC 686: (AIR 1991 SC 1011). The High Court also felt that it was rather improbable that a candidates appearing before an interviewing body would have the temerity to misbehave at the time of interview and that it was contrary to normal and accepted human behaviour. In this context, the High Court has referred to the affidavit filed by Shri S. K. Sethi, Inspector General of Police, Haryana (Respondent No. 4 in Civil Petition No. 5361 of 1991) who had assisted the Board at the time of physical test and interview as an expert, and has stated that no candidate had misbehaved with any member of the Selection Committee in his presence. The High Court has observed that neither the Board nor the Chairman of the Board, who had been impleaded as respondents, had chosen to reply to the writ petition and to controvert the allegations made on this point. In the circumstances, the High Court has Proceeded on the basis that there was in fact no misbehaviour on the part of any candidate. The High Court did not go into question of mala fides alleged against the members of the Board as there was absence of proper and full particulars to that effect in the writ petition and also for the reason that all members of the Board had not been impleaded as parties in the writ petitions.;