R.P. Sethi, J. - (1.) INSTRUSIONS into the impartial functioning of the constitutional institutions, like Public Service Commissions, is alleged to be an increasing trend in our polity and if not checked, it likely to not only adversely affect but surely dash to the ground the constitutional edifice adopted and prevalent in our country. Extraneous considerations, alleged uncalled interference, internal rivalry for various reasons, including personal vanity and attempted effort to secure gains or favours from the executive have not only affected the smooth and proper functioning of the constitutional Tribunal, but also has created dissatisfaction amongst the common man, who has unflinched and unrestricted faith in the constitutional mechanism prevalent in our society. The alleged irregularities in the conduct of Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Examination and the personal bickerings amongst the members of the Haryana Public Service Commission (Hereinafter called "the Commission") culminated in passing of the impugned order, by which the aforesaid examination held in the month of October, 1993, was scrapped. The controversy did not rest with the scrapping of the examination only but reached the lowest level of allegations and counter allegations amongst the members of the Commission, a group staging a coup against the Chairman, who is turn resigned alongwith some other members. In the name of "maintaining the glorious traditions and highest standards of the Civil Service" and in the name of protecting the image of the Commission, its constituent Members behaved like unrespectable Members and threw filth upon each other in public, which does not deserve any other comment than to be condemned. The functioning of the Commission and its Members, including its Chairman shook the faith of not only the candidates, who had appeared in the examination and who are likely to appear in the examinations to be conducted by the Commission in future, but also amongst the common man, who was supposed to look at the Commission with respect and regard. In the order impugned (Annexure P/1), it was mentioned that after the examination, during the process of evaluation of scripts, a number of acts of commissions and commissions, like non -sealing of key/clippings at the proper time and other irregularities reflecting upon the observance of proper secrecy had come to the notice of commission, due to which the examination held in October, 1993, was being scrapped and the action of the Commission was stated to be in the interests of observance of objectivity, impartiality, justice and fair competition.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present controversy in brief are that the Commission, - -vide Advertisement Notice No. 7 Exam 1/92, issued in the last week of November, 1992, advertised various posts for Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services. Details of the posts were specified in the advertisement -notice. It was mentioned that number of candidates to be called for interview after qualifying the written examination was not to exceed three times the prescribed vacancies. Thousands of candidates applied for those posts and took the examination, which commenced from 2nd of October, 1993, and concluded on 15th of October, 1993 Sealed answer books are stated to have been received from different centres in the office of the Secretary of the Commission by that date. It is stated that the key for listing original roll numbers and fictitious roll numbers was prepared in the month of October, 1993, itself. The clippings from answer books after recording fictitious roll numbers on the back of original roll numbers and also recording roll numbers on the front page of answer sheets, as per listing in the Key, are stated to have been removed in the months of November and December, 1993. Answer Books with fictitious roll numbers are admitted to have been sent to the examiners for evaluation alongwith proforma for award list during this period. The answer books after proper evaluation alongwith the award lists were received from the examiners by the Secretary to the commission in February, March and April, 1994. It is stated that during the months of March and April, 1994, scrutiny of marked answer books (scripts) for cheeking totals, tallying of marks in the abstract vis -a -vis body of the answer books, detection of unmarked parts, over attempted questions from different sections, detection of any attempt for disclosing identity of the candidate and carrying out the correction in the scripts as also award lists was conducted. During this period, answer books to Original examiners were sent where marking of left over parts of attempted questions was required. Preparation of result cards, candidate -wise, with fictitious roll numbers is stated to have commenced in May/June, 1994. Arranging result card, merit wise, with marks of 45 per cent and above was carried out in the month of June, 1994. Preparation of merit list with fictitious roll numbers for determining qualified candidates with 45 per cent and above marks for the purposes of interview also commenced during this period. However, when the results were expected to be declared by the commission, internal bickering amongst its members is alleged to have commenced, which perpetuated to the extent that the whole of the examination was ultimately scrapped, - -wide the order impugned in the petitions. The Petitioners, who have approached this Court for quashing scrapping of the examination result, have alleged that harsh action of passing the impugned order was due to internal fight between tire Chairman on one hand and the Members of the en -block on the other hand, which is stated to be lowness and incredibility of the Members and the Chairman. It is submitted that Members of the Commission manipulated the non -sealing of key of the fictitious roll numbers themselves as number of relatives of the members had appeared in the examination and such members were keen to know the awards of their kith and kind. It is further alleged that after becoming aware of their marks in the written examination, they approached the Chairman for doing the needful for their favourite candidates. Allegedly, not finding favour to their kith and kind the Members are alleged to have raised voice against the technical faults, such as non -sealing of key etc. The members are stated to have been non -serious about such technicalities earlier. The non -sealing of key for sometime is stated to have not changed the process of correct evaluation. It is contended that the members of the Commission had created such a chaos, which was published in all the leading newspapers, giving the impression that the Haryana Public Service Commission was nothing but "a Posts selling Commission". The alleged corruption at such high level is stated to have been made public with the result that the Chairman to save his skin had to resign. Some of the other members are also stated have followed the path chosen by the Chairman. The action of Scrapping the whole examination is stated to be mala -fide. Such mala -fides have been sought to be supported by different news items published in various news papers. The Petitioners have claimed that the examination was conducted in a fair manner and tampering, if any, related to the result part of the examination. Scrapping of entire examination after one year and that too on technical grounds is alleged to be highly unjustified. The Petitioners claim to have spent two precious years of their life for appearance in the competitive examination and awaiting the result. They claim that they were not at fault and could not be penalised for the acts of omission or commission done by members of the Commission. The Petitioners have prayed that the answer sheets be handed over to some independent agency, like the Union Public Service Commission, for fresh evaluation and preparation of the result so that the time spent on conduct of the examination is saved. It is further contended that the Commission has no right or jurisdiction to scrap the examination, which is claimed to have been conducted in a fair manner. The candidates, who have burnt their mid -night lamps for months together by keeping themselves off from their respective jobs and engaged themselves for all the 24 hours In preparation of written examination of the commission, cannot be asked again to prepare for the same after a lapse of more than a year, particularly when they are not at fault. It is submitted that no finger was ever raised during the conduct of the examination and as the examination was held in a fair manner, there was no justification for scrapping of the whole examination. It is further contended that the Commission should not have permitted to be converted into a "Post selling agency of the State". It has been prayed that a direction be issued for seizing records pertaining to the aforesaid examination, held in October, 1993, and the impugned order scrapping the same be set aside. Answer sheets of the H.C.S. (Executive Branch) and other allied examination be sent to the Union Public Service Commission or some other independent agency for re -evaluation within a specified period, The Petitioners have prayed for grant of exemplary costs and compensation. In the written Statement filed on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 2 (in C.W.P. No. 8584 of 1994), it is stated that as no fundamental or legal right of the Petitioners has been violated, the writ petition filed by them is liable to be dismissed. The aforesaid Respondents have submitted that as the entire record of the examination has been seized and sealed under orders of the Court, the written statement was being submitted on the basis of the personal knowledge or the information derived from the record whatever was available with the Commission. The Chairman of the Commission, Shri L.D. Kataria, is stated to have resigned. The issuance of the advertisement notice, holding of the examination and preparation of the result -sheet, as stated herein before, has been admitted. The order impugned in the petition, which has been filed with the written statement as Annexure R/1, is claimed to be speaking, detailed and self -contained. It is stated that in view of the circumstances mentioned therein and taking a view in totality , Respondent No. 1 scrapped the examination held in October. 1993, for the reasons stated in the order impugned. It is further contended that the scrapping of the examination was not without legal sanctity and could not be termed to have been passed in an arbitrary manner. It is contended that scrapping of the examination was not directed on account of differences between the members and the then Chairman. It is submitted that on the basis of the facts and circumstances before the Commission, the then Chairman and the members acting in their wisdom, taking a view in totality, and in the interest of observation, objectivity, impartiality, justice and fair competition decided to scrap the H.C.S. examination held in October, 1993, - -vide the impugned order in this petition. The averments of the Petitioners that they had worked hard; spent time and had burnt their mid night lamps, have been termed to be based on conjectures and surmises. The allegation that the Commission was "a Post selling agency", has been denied, with the submission that such allegations were misconceived and baseless.
(3.) SHRI L.D. Kataria, the then Chairman of the Commission, who is a party Respondent in all the writ petitions, (impleaded as Respondent, - -vide C.M. No. 8511/1994, in C.W.P. No. 8584/1994, - -vide order dated September 27, 1994) in his affidavit has stated that no legal or fundamental right of the Petitioners has been violated, as such their petition is liable to be dismissed. However, giving background of all essential chain of events resulting in cancellation of the written examination, - -vide the impugned order, Shri Kataria in his affidavit has stated that the Commission is the highest constitutional authority within the State, which is giving specialised service in the State according to the provisions of the Constitution for carrying out selection on merit to various kinds of posts, as per requirement of the State Government from time to time. The Commission is engaged in the wide variety of selections, involving thousands of candidates throughout the year. In order to facilitate the proper selection on sound basis, procedures to ensure fairness in selection are followed. Wherever there is a written test as also interview as part of the selection procedure, it is absolutely necessary to ensure that strict secrecy is maintained in the assessment of the written papers so that neither the question paper nor what the candidate has written in the answer sheet is made available to any third party. Tampering with the answer sheets or leakage of the papers is the main concern of the Commission, for which complex procedures are followed, depending on the requirement of the situation. With a view to achieve the objective of maintaining the secrecy, the candidates' original roll numbers, as they appear on the answer sheets, are substituted with fictitious roll numbers before the same are sent to the examiners for evaluation. This is done on the basis of a key which contains the original roll number of the candidate and the fictitious roll numbers, as is allotted against the original roll number when the answer books are sent to the examiners for evaluation. The key is prepared by the Secretary of the Commission personally. It is ensured that no third party gets any information regarding the identity of any candidate or his answer book between the time he appeared and the time the evaluation is done and the result is prepared and compiled. Before the answer books are sent to the examiners for evaluation, that portion of the sheet of the answer book, which contains the original roll number, is removed. This portion of is removed only after recording on its backside the fictitious roll number allocated to the candidate. Fictitious roll number is also recorded on the first page of the answer book of the candidates, which is then sent to the examiner for evaluation. The portion of the answer book containing the original and fictitious roll numbers is called 'Clipping', which is removed by the Secretary with the help of his Staff. The entire key as also the clippings are meant to be kept in a sealed cover by the Secretary of the Commission till such time key and the clippings are required to be opened when the compilation of the written result for the purpose of inviting the candidates for interview is required to be prepared. When the result of the written examination is prepared, no order of merit is notified, so that no prejudice is caused to any candidate appearing for the interview. Even the members of the Commission including the Chairman are not meant to have any access to the information regarding the written performance of any candidate, who is to appear in interview, as otherwise there is apprehension of prejudice against any candidate, which may lead to possibility of nepotism or such like malpractices. In the examination, which is the bone of contention in these writ petitions, the evaluation of the answer sheets was more or less completed by the month of May, 1994, when the answer sheets were received back in the office of the Commission. At a time when the result of the written examination was being completed for the purposes of inviting the successful candidates for interview, two members of the Commission, namely Shri Sher Singh and Shri Ude Ram are alleged to have approached the deponent for helping in selection of some candidates. One of such candidates was related to Shri Sher Singh, being his nephew. The then Chairman claims that he resisted this unhealthy approach, which led to some type of frustration and antagonism on the part of those two members. The attempt to influence the Chairman is stated to have been first made in October, 1993, at the time when the written examination was held and upon his inability to oblige those two members, some bitterness and hostility was exhibited by the aforesaid two members, who also tried to influence the then Secretary to the Commission, Shri Tuli, for helping them in an illegal way to achieve their objective, which effort too was resisted by him. The key and the clippings were meant to be sealed by the Secretary of the Commission after sending the answer books to the examiners. Such an obligation was completed in the middle of December, 1993. The aforesaid two members are alleged to have somehow got the knowledge that the Secretary instead of putting the key of the fictitious and actual roll numbers in sealed cover had not done so as was the practice in the past and they raised this issue in the meeting of the commission held on 29th December, 1993. Shri Tuli, the then Secretary of the Commission was called with a view to verify the information whether the key was not sealed was correct or not. Shri Tuli informed the Commission members that he had kept the key in safe custody, which was lying in his personal locked box in his almirah. He emphasised that: no person had any access to his almirah. He was asked to bring the key, which when brought was found in the locked box, as stated by him, but was not kept in a sealed cover. He was reprimanded by the Chairman and advised to put the key in a sealed cover, which was done in the presence of all the members of the Commission. All the members are stated to have been satisfied and the controversy ended. The Chairman claims that he was satisfied that the aforesaid commission on the part of the Secretary was merely a technical lapse and there was no room for doubt to apprehend that there had been any violation of secrecy. The Chairman was convinced with the fairness of the written test. Such assessment of the Chairman is stated to have remained unchanged right till June, 1994, when he resigned from the Commission. He has further alleged that because of his resistance to the effort made by the two members aforesaid, a sudden feeling of antagonism had developed against him and the then Secretary of the Commission. Ultimately the flash -point reached on 21st June, 1994 when new Secretary of the Commission Mr. Jha was on leave, being a restricted holiday. The Controller Examination was looking after the work of the Secretary during his absence on that day. All the six members of the Commission (other than the Chairman) called the Controller of Examination and asked him to bring the key of the fictitious and actual roll numbers as also the clippings of all the answer sheets, which would show the fictitious and actual roll numbers. The matter was brought to the notice of the Chairman who advised the aforesaid members in writing that the key is in the custody of the Secretary and the sealed key can be seen by them when the Secretary comes back from leave and that the record should not be opened and seen in the interest of secrecy. On this all the aforesaid six members sent a written note to the Chairman, stating inter alia that non -production of the record pertaining to the key and the clippings showed that no secrecy was maintained in the compilation of the written result. They also alleged that the Chairman and the Secretary knew about the result of the written examination in violation of the norms of secrecy. They also indicated in writing that because of such a situation created, they would not be a party to the preparation and declaration of result and would like that the H.C.S. (Executive Branch) examination held is cancelled. It is submitted by the Chairman that "this was a fantastic and a bogus allegation. Neither the members of the Commission, as stated earlier, nor the Chairman are meant to have any knowledge regarding the written performance of any individual candidate. This can only be ensured by keeping the records of the fictitious and original roll numbers (including the clippings and the key) in safe custody without access to the members". The aforesaid members are stated to have influenced the other four members into believing without any basis that some mal -practice has taken place in compilation of the written examination, process of which was still continuing at that time. There was no question of final preparation of the merit list for the purpose of inviting the successful candidates for interview till the sealed cover in which the clippings or the key was contained were opened and the necessary comparison done. This note of the six members of the Commission was received by the Chairman in the evening of 21st June, 1994 and by that time all the aforesaid six members had left the Commission office as generally they did not attend the office after lunch, as per practice. On 22nd June, 1994 a news item appeared in the press, in which grave allegations are stated to have been levelled against the Chairman and the staff of the Commission The allegations made in the note of the members of the Commission dated 21st June, 1994 were repeated in the press news -item. The Chairman claims that he again tried to resolve the matter by discussion on 23rd June, 1994 but failed. He called a press conference on that day to dispel the alleged damage, which was created by the publication of the news item in the press. He contends that before going to the press, last ditch effort was made to the members that they were free to see any record they wanted to see, as he was interested somehow that all the hard labour put in by thousands of the candidates is not put to waste by cancellation of the result, which was the only option left. The members, however, did not respond. He has categorically stated that the compilation of the result on the basis of fictitious roll numbers is carried out by the Secretary with the help of his staff and is neither the work of the Chairman, nor of any member. The Secretary is, however, required to obtain guidelines or orders whenever necessary. The allegations made by the six members of the commission are termed to be wild allegations and without any basis. He felt that it would be in the interest of the public that the examination is scrapped and the fresh process is initiated as he had no choice in the matter. There was no way left with the Chairman to prevail upon the members to see the reason and withdraw from the position, which they had taken that the result be declared void. In order to put to rest the unseemly controversy, the Chairman had to pass the order impugned in these petitions. He has alleged that feeling frustrated and unhappy at the " scandalous behaviour of some of the members of the Commission and the enormity of the demange done to the reputation of the Commission as an institution, he put his resignation to vindicate his position on 30th June, 1994, which was duly accepted by the Governor. He also issued a press note vindicating his position. It is further deposed by the Chairman that "he had a special responsibility and a role to play as Chairman of the Commission to see that the result of the written examination in which thousands of young candidates were involved is not cancelled to void widespread frustration. The Answering Respondent was also conscious of the need to ensure secrecy of the examination and the prestige and the creditability of the exam, in the eye of the public. He was also at the same time conscious that any genuine doubt of the members of the Commission should be suitably removed. The Answering Respondent basically was clear all along that there has been no violation of secrecy whatsoever to justify such a drastic step as cancellation of the examination which the 6 members unanimously decided to do on 21st June, 1994 itself on such grounds which had already been sorted out earlier like sealing of the key on 29th December, 1994 itself. Nothing had happened since then to justify any change of attitude or perception regarding violation of the secrecy of the written examination. However, when all the efforts failed to persuade the members to see the matter in a larger perspective particularly in the context that there has been no violation of secrecy or unfair advantage taken by any party because of delayed dealing of the key and keeping in view the negative attitude shown in the Press Conference by the Members on 23rd June, 1994, the Answering Respondent was left with little choice but to take the decision to put his seal of concurrence to the cancellation of the written examination". It is further contended that the members had pointed out the following alleged irregularities: (a) That certain award lists sent by the examiner which were earlier sealed under the signatures of the two members namely Udho Ram and V.S. Chaudhary alongwith the Secretary of the Commission were opened under orders of the Chairman without prior approval of these two members. (b) That use of examiners other than the original paper setters for the purpose of making supplementary evaluation on those portions of the Answer Sheets of the some of the candidates which had remained unassessed by mistake. (c) That Answer Sheets had been exchanged and additional answer sheets were added/replaced.;