S.B.SINHA, J. - (1.) THE State of Punjab is in appeal before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 10.01.2002 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab 6 Haryana High Court allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein.
(2.) ON or about 07.05.1997, the Civil Surgeon, Nawanshahr issued an advertisement in 'New Zamana', Jalandhar, inviting applications for the following 31 posts : JUDGEMENT_611_JT10_2005Html1.htm A large number of candidates being more than 9000 applied for appointments in the said posts pursuant to or in furtherance of the said advertisement. Interviews of about 1000 persons were conducted on 12/ 13 05.1997. Appointment letters to the so called candidates were despatched on 05 06.1997 and they were allowed to join on 06.06.1997. A writ petition was filed by some unsuccessful candidates, which was marked as Civil Writ Petition No 11116 of 1997, wherein 18 of the selected candidates were made parties. The entire selection process as well as the selection of the said respondents were questioned, inter alia, on the ground that their names were recommended by one or the other influential persons or they had otherwise access to the Civil Surgeon concerned. In the said writ petition, it was, inter alia, prayed : i) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the selection of Class IV employee in the civil hospital Nawanshahr vide selection list Annexure P/3 and further to order quashing the appointment of respondent no.4 to 21 against the post (in class IV) and to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents no. 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as Class IV employees in the civil hospital, Nawanshahr."
(3.) A Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment and order dated 10.11.2000 perused the records pertaining to the process of selection and the results thereof and was of the opinion that although no criteria whatsoever was fixed for evaluating the marks which were to be given to each individual candidate but despite the same 5 marks had been awarded for the purported qualification and experience to each candidate while 20 marks had been fixed for interview. It was noticed : "...It may also be mentioned here that according to the notification which was issued on 7th May, 1997, it was indicated that (i) the candidate should be able to read write, Punjabi and (ii) the experience shall be given preference. In view of this it is apparent that the committee which was conducting the interview was given no guidelines which were to be followed by them by evaluating the worth of any candidate. It had an absolute and arbitrary discretion regarding how they were to access and award marks during the time of interview Further more it is also evident that out of a total of 30 marks that were to be awarded, 20 marks have been earmarked for the interview which shows that more than 66% marks were to be given by the member of the board without any parameter having been fixed awarding thereof. No material has been placed before us to show that how 20 marks were to be awarded by the five members of the Board nor it is clear that how the marks have actually been awarded...." The High Court further noticed the manner in which discriminatory treatment had been made in awarding the marks to the persons similarly situated. It was also not clear to the High Court as to how the merit list was prepared. It was observed : "...One fails to see how a person been the basic qualifications, above to read and write Punjabi could have been awarded 1 marks not here is anything to indicate that on what basis various candidates have been awarded more marks once the advertisement did not provide for preference being given to candidates having higher qualifications (?)." ;