G.R. Majithia, J. - (1.) BY a common judgment the learned Single Judge disposed of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4416, 4327 and 4059 of 1985. In Civil Writ Petition No. 4416 of 1985 the selection of Gurpal Singh and Kashmira Singh as Labour Inspectors Grade -II who were arrayed as Respondents No. 4 and 5 in the petition, was quashed. They have challenged this order by two separate appeals; Letters Patent Appeal No. 87 of 1986 and 233 of 1986. Now in this appeal, the challenge is as under:
(2.) THE brief facts are that the State of Punjab sent a requisition to the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab to fill up four posts of Labour Inspectors Grade II. The Subordinate Services Selection Board in pursuance thereto advertised four posts of Labour Inspectors Grade -II (Technical). Out of the four posts advertised, two were to be filled from General Category, one from amongst Scheduled Castes and one from amongst the Ex -Service -men. The minimum educational qualification prescribed was Graduate from a recognised University with at least second division. The Appellant alleged that he fulfilled all the qualifications and applied for the post. He qualified in the written test and thereafter was called for interview. The interview was held on August 14, 1985 and August 16, 1985 by a committee consisting of Shri H.S Sidhu, Chairman of the Board and Shri S.S. Kakkar, a member. One Shri G.S. Saroya, Deputy Chief Inspector (Factories) was also associated with the committee as an expert. The selection is rendered invalid since Shri G.S. Saroya, who was an outsider, was associated in the process of selection. Viva -voce marks are 50 per cent of the written test marks and are far excessive and are in violation of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. The State of Haryana and Ors. (1985) 4 S.C. 417, where it was held that viva -voce marks should not be 12.2 per cent of written marks. The Board in its reply admitted that Shri G.S. Saroya was not deputed by the Labour Commissioner for assisting the Board in making selection for the post of Labour Inspectors Grade II. Since he represented the Labour Commissioner in the selection of Laboratory Assistants, he was also associated by the Board in the process of selection of candidates for the post of Labour Inspectors Grade II. The role of the department's representative is only to give expert/technical opinion desired by the Board at the time of interview. The Board gives full weightage to his opinion but he does not participate in the final selection. The final selection is by the Board. The Board conducts a written test which is an objective type test consisting of 60 marks and those candidates who qualify in the test are called for interview. The interview consisted of 100 marks out of which 60 marks were allotted for educational qualifications etc. and 40 marks allotted for viva voce which were awarded on the basis of mental alertness and performance shown at the time of interview and aptitude of the candidate. The Chairman or any other member acting as such in his absence gives 20 marks. The other members of the Board give 20 marks each and average of the marks given by the members present at the time of interview are considered as given by all the members to which the marks given by the Chairman are added. The merit is determined on the basis of total marks thus obtained on account of qualification/experience etc. The Board interviewed 760 candidates and it formed two separate selection committees - -one consisting of Chairman and a member and the other consisting of two members of the Board and the two committees interviewed the candidates. The fixation of the educational qualification was justified by the Board.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge categorised the grounds of attack of the writ -Petitioner as under: (i) that the Appellant was graduate with third class whereas the qualification required is graduates with second class. (ii) The viva voce marks are 50 per cent of the written marks and are far and excessive and are in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. : (1985) 4 S.C.C. 417, wherein it is held that viva voce marks should not be more than 12.2 per cent of the written marks ; (iii) Shri G.S. Saroya, Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories was present in the interview, to advise the Subordinate Services Selection Board (for short 'the Board), although he had not been appointed by the Government to be present with the Selection Committee as an expert. (iv) From the written statement filed on behalf of the Board, it is clear that 60 marks were provided for objective test and 100 marks for interview. Out of the 100 marks, 60 marks were allotted for educational qualifications, experience etc. whereas 40 marks were allotted for viva voce which were awarded on the basis of man -tal alertness and performance shown at the time of interview and aptitude of the candidate for the post. Out of 40 viva voce marks, 20 marks were allotted to the Chairman of the Board or any other member acting as such in his absence and the remaining 20 marks were to be awarded by the other members. Each member was allocated 20 marks and then average was taken and then finally the marks given by the members were added to the marks given by the Chairman and merit was determined ; that interview was conducted by two committees of the Board, one consisting of two members and the other consisting of Chairman and a Member. It is urged that since Chairman sat only in one Committee, then how viva voce marks are to be evaluated or could be evaluated have not been explained in the written statement, and (v) That 760 candidates were interviewed in three days in 138 categories of service.;