CRM-M No. 116 of 2024 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2024

Judgment

1. The pe(cid:16)(cid:16)oner, who was a member of Punjab Public Service Commission from 2008 to 2014, apprehending arrest in the FIR cap(cid:16)oned above has come up before this Court seeking an(cid:16)cipatory bail.

2. The facts of the case are being taken from paragraph Nos.3 to 24 of the reply dated 29.01.2024 filed by the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, which reads as follows:

3.That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that a Special Inves(cid:26)ga(cid:26)on Team (herea(cid:30)er referred as SIT) consis(cid:26)ng of Sh. M. S. Bali, the re(cid:26)red Joint Commissioner of CBI and Sh. Suresh Arora, the then Director General of Police, Vigilance (Punjab) was cons(cid:26)tuted by vide order dated

22.11.2013 and 18.12.2013 passed by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in CWP No.6902 of 2010 (cid:26)tled as "K.P.S Gill versus Punjab Public Commission through its Secretary and Others" to conduct Preliminary enquiry into allega(cid:26)ons of corrup(cid:26)on and favori(cid:26)sm in the ma(cid:20)er of recruitment of 312 Medical Officer (General) during the years 2008-2009 by the Punjab Public Service Commission, Pa(cid:26)ala (herea(cid:30)er referred as PPSC) and in pursuant said orders, SIT has conducted preliminary enquiry in the ma(cid:20)er and submi(cid:20)ed a detail JYOTI 2024.02.22 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-116-2024 report before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana Court on dated

21.05.2014. True Typed copy of said report is enclosed herewith as Annexure R-1/T.

4. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that as per preliminary enquiry report submi(cid:20)ed by SIT, the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Punjab in order to reviving and filling up 286 vacant posts of Medical Officers (General) has requested the PPSC vide Memo No. 1/13/97-6C1/2739 dated 25/09/2008 to ini(cid:26)ate the process of selec(cid:26)on of 100 Medical Officers (General) at the earliest and in pursuant to said proposal, PPSC has invited applica(cid:26)ons from the eligible candidates for recruitment of 100 Medical Officers (General) by fixing last date for submission of applica(cid:26)on as 07/11/2008 through adver(cid:26)sement no.3 dated 07/10/2008. It was men(cid:26)oned in the instruc(cid:26)ons for filling up the applica(cid:26)on form under the head "IMPORTANT NOTE" that where the number of applica(cid:26)ons received in response to the adver(cid:26)sement is large and if it will not be convenient or possible for the Commission to interview all the candidates, then the Commission may restrict the number of candidates for interview to a reasonable limit on the basis of short-lis(cid:26)ng them by order of their academic merit as per their qualifica(cid:26)on/higher marks or by holding a Screening Test.

5. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that PPSC in its mee(cid:26)ng held on 26/02/2004 has adopted new Rules of Procedure-2004 and Rules of Procedure exis(cid:26)ng prior to 26/02/2004 were repealed. It is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that salient features of the new Rules of Procedure adopted in 2004 vis-à-vis the PCMS selec(cid:26)ons are as follows: A. That as per para 3 of Appendix 'A' of the Rules of Procedure-2004, ini(cid:26)al screening followed by a viva- voce was required to be conducted by the PPSC for the recruitment of PCMS officers. Para 2 of Annexure A of the said Rules further says that even in case of interview based selec(cid:26)ons, Screening Test/Short-lis(cid:26)ng will be done in case of larger number of candidates. For the purpose of short-lis(cid:26)ng, for one post, 6 candidates and then 3 candidates for every addi(cid:26)onal post will be called for the interview. B. Para 18 of Appendix 'A' of the said Rules of Procedure- 2004 mandates that a Resource Person (Subject Specialist) will be invited for the interview for one day JYOTI 2024.02.22 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-116-2024 only. C. As per para 20 of the said Appendix 'A', in case a panelist adjudges a candidate below/above the bracket (25-75%), then he will bring forth this proposi(cid:26)on before the Panel for discussion and will record the reasons in wri(cid:26)ng for the same. D. Annexure B of the said Rules of Procedure-2004 prescribes the criteria/break up of interview marks which is summarized as under: I. II. III. IV. V. VI. Academic Qualifica(cid:26)on (basic) Higher Qualifica(cid:26)on Job Experience NCC/Sports Publica(cid:26)ons Viva-Voce 40 02 05 10 03 40 (30 marks for the interview board and 10 marks for the Subject Specialist) Thus, the new Rules of Procedure-2004 gave equal weightage to the basic academic qualifica(cid:26)on and viva voce. It also gave due credit of 5% marks for the job experience.

6. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that while the process of recruitment of 100 Medical Officers (General) had already been ini(cid:26)ated, the interview criteria was changed by cons(cid:26)tu(cid:26)ng a Sub-Commi(cid:20)ee consis(cid:26)ng of Dr. Ajaib Singh, Dr. Satwant Singh Mohi and Mrs. Ravinder Kaur (all members of PPSC) by Sh. S.K. Sinha, the then Chairman, PPSC, which was cons(cid:26)tuted on 06/11/2008 and it submi(cid:20)ed its report on the same day without men(cid:26)oning any jus(cid:26)fica(cid:26)on/reasons or grounds for affec(cid:26)ng the change in the interview criteria in the Rules of Procedure-

2004. The Sub-commi(cid:20)ee basically decreased the marks of basic academic qualifica(cid:26)on, increased the marks for Viva-Voce by 20%, decreased the weightage of the marks allo(cid:20)ed to the expert, eliminated the marks for experience and introduced a new feature of 'Social Work in Medical Field'.

7. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that Sh. S.K. Sinha, the then Chairman, PPSC, put up a note dated 03/02/2009 for discussion in the mee(cid:26)ng of the Commission to be held on 04/02/2009 regarding the fixa(cid:26)on of the JYOTI 2024.02.22 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-116-2024 interview criteria for the recruitment of Medical Officers (General) to the PCMS men(cid:26)oning that there is no jus(cid:26)fica(cid:26)on for the Commission to consider applicants of foreign qualifica(cid:26)ons for the posts of MOS (General) and for assigning any points for post graduate or extra- curricular ac(cid:26)vi(cid:26)es to the MBBS degree holders. It would be totally and absolutely illegal and the interview criteria contained in the Rules of Procedure-2004 was arbitrarily changed in the mee(cid:26)ng of the Commission held on 04/02/2009 and the PPSC reduced the academic qualifica(cid:26)on marks from 40 to 35 and deleted the 5 marks for job experience which is vital for any Medical Service. Further marks for higher qualifica(cid:26)on were also increased from 2 to 3 and a new criteria of 5 marks for social work in Medical field was arbitrarily introduced without recording any reasons. The Viva Voce marks were increased from 40 to 50. All these changes was adopted so that the candidates with meritorious academic record could be eliminated and the candidates with poor academic career could be pushed high in the merit list at the discre(cid:26)on of the interview board members. Moreover, above new criteria was never brought to the no(cid:26)ce of the candidates either through a Public No(cid:26)ce or through individual communicator depriving majority of them of marks to which they may have been en(cid:26)tled under the revised parameters. However, most of the candidates who had claimed weightage for the Social Work in Medical Field had produced cer(cid:26)ficates issued by Gram Pradhans or NGOs and not by any government body of ins(cid:26)tu(cid:26)on. Most of these cer(cid:26)ficates were in respect of different type of medical camps as were men(cid:26)oned in the criteria recommended by the sub-commi(cid:20)ee of PPSC in its mee(cid:26)ng dated 06/11/2008 and approved by the Chairman on 12/11/2008. This criterion was subsequently modified on 04/2/2009 and was never made a part of any record of the interview. However, some candidates produced cer(cid:26)ficates showing similar nature of camps as proposed by the sub- commi(cid:20)ee on 06/11/2008 and that could only be possible because of the fact that it was selec(cid:26)vely leaked to those candidates by the concerned Members of PPSC who were interested in their selec(cid:26)on

to PCMS.

8. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that in response to a clarifica(cid:26)on sought by the PPSC from the Department of Health and Family Welfare regarding the applicants who had obtained Medical Degree from the JYOTI 2024.02.22 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-116-2024 foreign universi(cid:26)es, the Department advised vide le(cid:20)er dated 20/01/2009 that the grading of various universi(cid:26)es cannot be compared and it would be be(cid:20)er under the circumstances to conduct a wri(cid:20)en test, but Sh. S.K Sinha, the then Chairman, PPSC put up a note dated 23/01/2009 for a discussion in the Commission, ostensibly projec(cid:26)ng that conduct of a wri(cid:20)en test will be an unduly long process which will take anything from 4-6 months at least, thus Sh. S.K Sinha, suo mo(cid:20)o, men(cid:26)oned that keeping in view the urgent need of the state government to fill up the vacancies, a process of conduc(cid:26)ng a wri(cid:20)en examina(cid:26)on may not be advisable and he further suggested that it would be far more expedi(cid:26)ous to call all the applicants for interview and grade them according to their interview marks. This note of the Chairman was discussed in the mee(cid:26)ng of the Commission dated 27/01/2009 and it was unanimously decided under the garb of the larger administra(cid:26)ve interest of the state and the so-called expedi(cid:26)ous demand of the government for Medical Officers (General), to have an interview based selec(cid:26)on and to call all the eligible candidates for the interview. Thus, the wri(cid:20)en test/screening test/short- lis(cid:26)ng on the basis of basic qualifica(cid:26)on marks was dispensed with in viola(cid:26)on of Rules of Procedure, 2004 with an ulterior mo(cid:26)ve of selec(cid:26)ng those candidates with poor academic record who would not have qualified for the interview otherwise.

9. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that 2201 applica(cid:26)ons were received for 100 posts of MO (General), out of which 427 were rejected a(cid:30)er preliminary scru(cid:26)ny by the PPSC, thus 1774 candidates were called for interview as against 100 posts of MOs making the post applicant ra(cid:26)o more than 1 is to 17, though the standard post-applicant ra(cid:26)o is 1 is to 3 as prescribed in the Rules of Procedure, 2004, thus said selec(cid:26)on makes a strong case for a screening test. It is further respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that the candidates who had obtained medical degrees from foreign universi(cid:26)es were not considered at all.

10. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that in pursuant to proposal, PPSC has been invi(cid:26)ng applica(cid:26)ons from the eligible candidates for recruitment of 212 Medical Officers (General) fixing last date for submission of applica(cid:26)on as 20/03/2009 through adver(cid:26)sement no.5 dated 01/03/2009. In pursuance of the said adver(cid:26)sement, 2453 candidates applied for the posts out of which 301 applica(cid:26)ons were JYOTI 2024.02.22 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-116-2024 rejected. The interview schedule of the remaining 2152 candidates was fixed held from 24/08/2009 to 30/09/2009 making the Post-Candidate ra(cid:26)o 1 is to 10 which was again on a very high side. 1450 candidates were interviewed for 212 posts of Medical Officers (General) by the PPSC.

11. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that interviews were conducted by three panels. Each panel was supposed to consist of two or three members of the PPSC and one Resource Person/Subject Specialist. Panel 'A' was headed by Sh. S.K Sinha, Chairman, PPSC and Panel 'B' and 'C were chaired by the senior member of PPSC present in the panel. For the interview of 212 posts of MOs (General), panel 'A' consisted of Sh. S.K Sinha alone and the Subject Specialist. Rest of the panels consisted of 2 or more than 2 members for both selec(cid:26)ons though, many a (cid:26)mes, those panels also conducted interviews as a single member board.

12. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that for the interview of 100 posts, the interview board consisted of single member of PPSC on 13 occasions even when the other members of the panel were present in the office as per PPSC record. For the interview of 212 posts, the interview board consisted of single member of PPSC on 29 occasions out of which 5 boards were chaired by Dr. S.S Mohi even when the other member of the panel was present in the office. The member of PPSC chairing as single member board enjoyed undue advantage of alloNng up to 40 marks out of 50 for Viva-Voce, with only 10 marks being reserved for the Resource Person, In mul(cid:26) member interview board, 40 marks of interview got equally divided amongst the members of PPSC present in the board. Thus, 755 candidates were interviewed by the single member boards out of which 87 were selected.

13. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that almost 81 candidates were called for interview per day in two sessions i.e. the Forenoon and the A(cid:30)ernoon session. For each interview panel there was one Subject Specialist, despite large number of names of Resource Persons available with the PPSC, some of the Resource Persons were called (cid:26)me and again for the interview of Medical Officers in contraven(cid:26)on of Rules of Procedure- 2004 of PPSC which required that a Resource Person should be invited for one day only. It is further respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that during enquiry conducted by the SIT, it has come on record that Resource Persons were asked by almost all the members of PPSC at one point or JYOTI 2024.02.22 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-116-2024 the other to take care of a par(cid:26)cular candidate.

14. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that 57 candidates against 100 posts and 92 candidates against 212 posts recommended for appointment by the PPSC, who had secured less than 60% marks in the MBBS examina(cid:26)on. They were given very high marks in the interview ranging between 80% to 100% except in some cases of reserve categories without any jus(cid:26)fica(cid:26)on with a view to bring them in the safer zone ensuring their selec(cid:26)on. It is further respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that panelists who have awarded excep(cid:26)onally higher marks to the candidates with poor academic record have not jus(cid:26)fied the same by giving cogent reasons. The panelists either gave no remarks in the interview award sheet or remarks given were very flippant like good, very good, excellent, etc. which clearly showed that there was a mee(cid:26)ng of minds with respect to the individual candidates who were to be selected. The (cid:26)me taken for interview in most of the cases was anywhere from 3 to 5 minutes, though it is not possible to judge a candidate on the parameters as described therein even within a period of 10 minutes.

15. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that 60 and 75 candidates recommended for appointment by the PPSC against 100 and 212 posts of MOs (General) respec(cid:26)vely had passed their MBBS professional examina(cid:26)ons in more than one a(cid:20)empt. Out of the aforesaid 60 candidates, 19 had cleared the MBBS professional examina(cid:26)ons in 7 to 11 a(cid:20)empts and out of the said 75 candidates, 26 had cleared the MBBS professional examina(cid:26)ons in 7 to 15 a(cid:20)empts. Many of these candidates were given very high marks without any jus(cid:26)fica(cid:26)on in the Viva-Voce in order to ensure their selec(cid:26)on.

16.That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that 26 candidates and 99 candidates recommended for appointment by the PPSC against 100 and 212 posts of MOs (General), were given marks ranging between 2 to 5 for Social Work in Medical Field for which they were not en(cid:26)tled. As per interview criteria, such marks were to be given only if the candidate was the organizer of the Social Awareness Camp and not for being a mere par(cid:26)cipant or for rendering help in organizing the camp. It is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that Social Work cer(cid:26)ficates produced by the candidates for obtaining weightage were never sent to the government by the PPSC for verifica(cid:26)on before appointment of the concerned candidates whereas cer(cid:26)ficates regarding the date of birth, educa(cid:26)onal qualifica(cid:26)on, JYOTI 2024.02.22 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-116-2024 registra(cid:26)on with Medical Council etc. were sent to the Government for verifica(cid:26)on before issuing appointment.

17. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that during the interview, Sh. S.K. Sinha, the then Chairman, PPSC used to behave rudely with the candidates and many of the Subject specialists who had worked with him as Resource Person. The erra(cid:26)c conduct of S.K. Sinha can be gauged from the fact that 45 candidates in 1st lot of 100 posts and 59 candidates in 2nd lot of 212 posts who had secured MBBS marks ranging between 60% to 72.32% were arbitrarily awarded zero percent marks despite their very good academic record, whereas other members siNng in the same panel had awarded marks ranging from 20% to 85% to those candidates. Shri S.K. Sinha had awarded 0% marks to 219 candidates and 100% marks to 14 candidates interviewed by him, whereas, as per the Resource Persons/Experts, any person who has passed out with MBBS degree, is bound to have some professional knowledge of the subject, therefore, no candidate can be given 0% marks. Similarly, his knowledge cannot be so perfect to earn 100% marks. Thus the marks awarded by Shri S.K. Sinha was arbitrary, irra(cid:26)onal, subjec(cid:26)ve and unfair one.

18. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that Dr. Satwant Singh Mohi, the then member, PPSC has irra(cid:26)onally without any cogent reasons or jus(cid:26)fica(cid:26)on awarded marks ranging between 80% to 98% to 27 candidates with an ulterior mo(cid:26)ve to ensure their selec(cid:26)on to PCMS, which are not commensurate with their academic record and he was also in telephonic contact with those candidates or their parents/rela(cid:26)ves to whom he had awarded excep(cid:26)onally high marks. Many of such contacts were even on the date of interview. Some contacts were made by Dr. S.S. Mohi even while the final result of 1st lot of 100 MOs (General) was being compiled by the PPSC late in the night on 12/6/2009 under his supervision. Dr. S.S Mohi was also in telephonic contact with some other candidates who were interviewed by other members and were given high marks by them.

19. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner Shri D.S. Mahal and other members of PPSC namely Anil Sarin and Brig. (Retd.) D.S. Grewal has irra(cid:26)onally without any cogent reasons or jus(cid:26)fica(cid:26)on awarded high marks to 24 candidates with an ulterior mo(cid:26)ve to ensure their selec(cid:26)on to PCMS. Many of these candidates had poor academic record. The said JYOTI 2024.02.22 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-116-2024 members were also in telephonic contact with most of those candidates or their parents/rela(cid:26)ves to whom the members of PPSC have awarded very high marks not commensurate with their academic record. True typed copy of list of such candidates along with names of PPSC members, marks awarded to them and Contact informa(cid:26)on is enclosed as Annexure R-2/T for kind considera(cid:26)on of this Hon'ble Court.

20. That that some of the candidates belonging to influen(cid:26)al background were awarded high marks by the members of PPSC though some of them had an average academic record. Some of them were also in contact with Dr. S.S Mohi, member, PPSC. It is further respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that Ms. Ravinder Kaur has given 98 marks in interview to student namely Akhil Sarin having Roll No.5031, who is the close rela(cid:26)ve of co-accused Anil Sarin and said Akhil Sarin con(cid:26)nuously in touch through telephonic calls with pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner Anil Sarin. True typed copy of list of such candidates showing marks awarded by the members is enclosed as Annexure R-3/T for kind considera(cid:26)on of this Hon'ble Court.

21. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that vehicle log book records of Mrs. Ravinder Kaur, the then Member PPSC, show that on par(cid:26)cular dates she was at Chandigarh, but in PPSC interview records she has been shown as present and has prepared and signed the interview award sheets of certain candidates. The interview award sheets are simple blank forms without any serial numbers embossed on them.

22. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that blatant viola(cid:26)ons of Rules contained in para 17 to 20 of Appendix-A of Rules of Procedure-2004 commi(cid:20)ed during the course of interviews were subsequently regularized with retrospec(cid:26)ve effect from 2006 by the PPSC on the ini(cid:26)a(cid:26)ve of Shri S.K. Sinha, the then Chairman on 21.09.2010.

23. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that it has been found that there are large number of cash deposits in the bank accounts of Dr. S.S. Mohi, the then Member of PPSC and his family members besides huge investment in various movable and immovable proper(cid:26)es during the relevant period when he was holding office as member of PPSC and he could not sa(cid:26)sfactorily explain the pecuniary resources and property acquired during said period.

24. That it is respec(cid:14)ully submi(cid:20)ed that on the recommenda(cid:26)on made in preliminary Enquiry made by the SIT, present FIR no. 45 dated JYOTI 2024.02.22 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-116-2024

18.12.2023, under sec(cid:26)ons sec(cid:26)on 13(1)(A) sec(cid:26)on 13(2) of Preven(cid:26)on of Corrup(cid:26)on Act, 1988 read with sec(cid:26)on 409, 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Sta(cid:26)on: Vigilance Bureau, District Pa(cid:26)ala against the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner and other co-accused.

3. I have heard counsel for the par(cid:16)es and gone through the record and an analysis would lead to the following outcome.

4. Counsel for the pe(cid:16)(cid:16)oner submits that pe(cid:16)(cid:16)oner has already joined inves(cid:16)ga(cid:16)on. He further submits that allega(cid:16)ons are qua grant of high marks to some candidates in order to favour them are wrong and selec(cid:16)on process has already passed the scru(cid:16)ny of this Court and this Court in CWP No.11466-2013 (cid:15)tled as Dr. Arun Kumar and others Versus State of Punjab and others regularized the services of the alleged tainted doctor whose selec(cid:16)on was under scanner and now State is trying to prosecute them.

5. Counsel for the pe(cid:16)(cid:16)oner submits that the inves(cid:16)ga(cid:16)on is a vesicant and the prosecu(cid:16)on has been launched without any evidence. It has further been argued that in the absence of direct evidence of quid-pro-quo makes its outcome uncertain. Although, this Court does not agree with this argument for the reason that the prosecu(cid:16)on has collected sufficient prima-facie evidence poin(cid:16)ng out towards irregulari(cid:16)es, viola(cid:16)ons of norms and other procedural lapses. However, this Court is considering pe(cid:16)(cid:16)on for bail and not pe(cid:16)(cid:16)on for quashing. The considera(cid:16)on for bail is different than considera(cid:16)ons of quashing or passing of the final judgment in trial. Thus, for the purpose of bail, it is not a case where custodial interroga(cid:16)on is required to find out further evidence or it can be made a tool to the collect money which was allegedly amassed by the pe(cid:16)(cid:16)oner. It is always open for the inves(cid:16)gator to take steps to recover proceeds of crime. However, on this ground alone, it is not a case to reject bail to pe(cid:16)(cid:16)oner, who is an accused for irregulari(cid:16)es in the selec(cid:16)on process which had taken place in the year, 2009. In addi(cid:16)on to that, the li(cid:16)ga(cid:16)on is pending from the year 2010 qua that selec(cid:16)on.

6. Given above, the present pe(cid:16)(cid:16)on is allowed and interim order dated 09.01.2024 is made absolute. All pending miscellaneous applica(cid:16)ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

22.02.2024 Jyo(cid:16)-II(cid:1) Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. JYOTI 2024.02.22 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.