- (1.) The challenge in this petition is to the selection of the third respondent as Senior Lecturer [Gynaecology & Obstetrics] in the Department of Medical Education & Research, Punjab. The criteria consisted of 40 marks for the interview, which the petitioner submits, was contrary to the law in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 4 SCC 417 wherein the Supreme Court held that the marks assigned for interview should not exceed 12.2% to remove any vestige of discrimination, arbitrariness, unfair evaluation of merit and rule against excessive discretion left in the hands of the selecting authority. In Ashok Kumar Yadav's case the Supreme Court also dealt with, amongst other things, the effect of a relative appearing before the recruiting agency, i.e., Public Service Commission who is related to any of the members of the Commission. When the candidate is related to a member of the Commission but the latter does not participate in the selection, then no inference of favouritism can be drawn: See para. 10 and 16 of the reported judgment.
(2.) The allegations of relationship in the present petition are contained in para. 10 of the petition furnishing a principal ground of challenge to the selection, which reads as follows : - "10. That the petitioners have just come to know that Respondent No.4 Dr.V.P.Dubey is dealing with the selection and other matters of Health Department in the Punjab Public Service Commission. Respondent No.3 Dr.Sujata Sharma is a close relative of Respondent No.4 i.e. the sister of Respondent No.4 is married to Mr.Bali presently working as Superintending Engineer in Punjab State Electricity Board at Basant Nagar, office at Amritsar. Dr.Karan Sharma is husband of Respondent No.3. Dr.Karan Sharma and Mr.Bali are cousin brothers i.e. both are sons of real brother and sister. On the asking of Respondent No.3, Respondent No.4 managed to appoint Respondent No.5 as expert. This was done in order to ensure the selection of Respondent No.3 as respondent No.4 was already a relative of respondent No.3 and respondent No.5 was guide, teacher and internal examiner of respondent No.3 and also having close and long association as Respondent No.3 also worked for 3 years under respondent No.5 and therefore the merit of all the other candidates was ignored for selecting respondent No.3. Apparently, the petitioners were possessing much better merit than Respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 may please be directed to produce the entire record of the selection for the perusal of this Hon'ble Court."
(3.) Dr.V.P.Dubey respondent No.4 was arrayed as a party by name. He was at the time a Member of the PPSC, Patiala. He has filed an affidavit explaining the allegations of relationship with the selected candidate in para. 10. His reply is found at page 101 of the paper-book which reads as follows : - "So far as the relationship of answering respondent with Respondent No.3 is concerned, in this respect it is submitted that the selected candidate (Respondent No.3) is not related to the answering respondent and hence denied. It is reiterated that Respondent No.3 (selected candidate) is not related to the Answering Respondent. The Relationship in the family is linked to "Blood" and "Marriage". The respondent is not related to his "father's family", or to his "mother's family" or through marriage. The Answering Respondent do not know the details of the families in which the sons/daughters of the Uncles of my brothers in law (numbering about 12) including Sh.K.K.Bali are married and what their spouses are doing.";