AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. - (1.) BY this order, I propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 6485 of 2008, 12295 of 2008, 6199 of 2008, 9658 of 2008, 8466 of 2008, 15130 of 2008 and 16400 of 2008 as the challenge in these writ petitions is to the selection and appointment of private respondents on the post of Principal HES -II in pursuance to the advertisement No. 6/2007 dated 21.6.2007 (Annexure -P -1). Respondent No. 2 -the Haryana Staff Selection Commission issued advertisement No. 6 of 2007 dated 21.6.2007 for filling up of various posts of different departments in which under category 7, 164 posts of Principal, HES -II were advertised. Petitioners being eligible applied in response to the said advertisement. Having been unsuccessful, they have challenged the selection and appointment of private respondents through the present writ petitions. The challenge to the selection primarily is based upon the fact that the criteria as laid down by the Commission for selection of the candidates is not in accordance with the earlier procedure being followed by it. The marks assigned for the viva -voce are excessive and that the candidates lower in merit than the petitioners have been selected and appointed ignoring the claim of the petitioners.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners has referred to the facts mentioned in CWP No. 12295 of 2008 contended that prior to the present selection, the Commission had always been holding a written test followed by interview and on that basis making selections. In the present selection, the Commission had instead of following the past criteria and procedure followed proceeded to frame its own criteria, granting separate marks for the post graduation, professional degree and experience which comes to 50 marks with 25 marks for viva -voce, thus, totalling to 75 marks. These 25 marks which comes to 33% of the total marks which is excessive and thus, cannot be made the basis for selection and appointment. There being no written test primarily the viva - voce would be the determinative factor for the selection of the candidates. The further submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents have selected the candidates by giving them higher marks in the interview although, petitioners have secured more marks in the professional and educational qualifications. That apart, it is contended that the appointment to the post could have been made on the basis of selection to be conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission as the said posts being HES -II posts are to be filled up through the Haryana Public Service Commission, whereas the selection has been done by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the HSSC'), which is not sustainable. On the other hand, counsels for respondents have submitted that the eligibility of the candidates who have been selected are not under challenge. The ground which has been pressed by the petitioners while assailing the selection is that the procedure/criteria as earlier followed and laid down by the HSSC is not in accordance with the past practice. They submit that there is no statutory mandate that a particular process is to be followed for selection, rather it is the selection committee which is competent to lay down its own criteria and procedure for selecting the candidates. The criteria for selection was duly notified by the HSSC and in this regard, reference has been made to Annexure -R -2/1. It is submitted that the posts for which the advertisement was issued were taken out of the purview of the Haryana Public Service Commission and the selection was handed over to the HSSC. Notification dated 10.1.2006 in this regard is appended as Annexure -R -2/2. Respondents have also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 15885 of 2000 titled as Jawahar Lal Goyal and others Versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 23.5.2001, in which review application preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed, vide order dated 6.12.2001 wherein it has been laid down that the Commission has a right to fix its own criteria for selection. The Commission thus, in the absence of any mandate under the statute exercised its powers for laying down the criteria for selection and on that basis the selection cannot be challenged. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siya Ram Versus Union of India, 1998 (2) SCC 566 to contend that the Court cannot determine as to how many marks should be allotted for viva -voce, for recruitment to any public post. It is for the expert body or the selection committee which will determine the criteria for selection and for fixing the marks for the viva -voce test in respect of recruitment to a particular public post. The criteria as has been followed by the respondents was also challenged in CWP No. 10141 of 2008 titled as Varun Vir Versus Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, decided on 4.3.2010 where the said criteria has been upheld by the learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kiran Gupta and others Versus State of U.P. and others, 2000 (4) RSJ 439 and Lila Dhar Versus State of Rajasthan and others, 1981 (4) SCC 159. Counsels for the respondents further contend that the selection and appointment of the private respondents being in consonance with the statutory Rules does not call for any interference by this Court.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the counsels for the parties and with their assistance have perused the referred to records of the case. It is an admitted position that the candidates, who have been selected, fulfilled the requisite qualifications for appointment to the posts of Principals as advertised. The challenge in the present writ petition is primarily to the criteria which has been laid down by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. The said criteria for selection reads as follows as contained in Annexure -R -2/1 : - "CRITERIA FOR MAKING SELECTION ON THE POST OF PRINCIPAL, HES -II, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AGAINST ADVT. NO. 06/2007, CATEGORY NO. 07 LAST DATE 20.07.2007 ********** Total Marks : 75 1. Essential Qualifications : M.A./M.Sc./M.Com. in second division 25 marks (I) 0.25 of the percentage of marks obtained (II) B.T./B.Ed. 20 marks 0.20 of the percentage of marks obtained (III) (i) In case of Head Master eight years teaching experience of Master out of which two years experience should be in an administrative capacity as Head of High School. (ii) In case of Lecturers eight years teaching experience as Master/Lecturer out of which at least two years experience should be as Lecturer in Govt./Recognized school. 2. Experience over and above the requisite 05 mark experience; 1 mark for each completed period of one year up to a maximum of 5 marks. 3. Viva voce: To assess the knowledge of subject, 25 marks communication skill, general knowledge, general awareness and intelligence." ;