Paramjit Kaur v. The State of Haryana & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit
Key paragraphs
- Para 1818. Public Service Commission has got the right to short list candidates on the basis of marks and on higher education or technical qualifications. This position is settled by the Apex Court in the decision in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Nouneet Kuma, AIR…
- Para 1919. From above discussion, it follows that law stated by the learned Single Judge in Asha Mehta's case (supa) and that by the Division Bench in Raj Deep Singh's case (supra) do not represent the correct law. We disapprove the same. Method of rounding off…
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present: Mr.Vikram Punia Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Priyanka Dalal, AAG, Haryana. * * * Nirmaljit Kaur, J.(Oral) The prayer in the present writ petition is for allowing the petitioner to take the interview for the post of Field Inspector (Store) in the Haryana State Co-op Supply and Marketing Federation which is stated to still take place. It is not disputed that the minimum requirement is 61 per cent in the graduation for BCA category. The petitioner got 60.67 per cent. Accordingly, her earlier interview call was cancelled. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she was entitled to be called for interview after rounding of the marks obtained by her in the graduation is not sustainable in view of the fact that the said issue stands settled by the Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case titled as Kuldip Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and others decided on
07.05.1995 in CWP No.12923 of 1994. The Full Bench of this Case in Kuldip Singh case (supra) held as under: “17. Learned counsel representing the petitioners advanced an argument that they rounding off the percentage of marks obtained by the petitioners, they are not being selected to the post, but they are only becoming eligible for being called for viva- Civil Writ Petition No.1659 of 2011 2 voce test. On account of this, no injustice is being caused to another candidate and, therefore, the prayers made in these writ petitions are to be allowed. We are not at all impressed with this argument. Pesons who are not eligible for being called for viva- voce test/interview are not to be made eligible and allowed to take part in the viva-voce test. It will certainly result in unequal being treated as equals.
Public Service Commission has got the right to short list candidates on the basis of marks and on higher education or technical qualifications. This position is settled by the Apex Court in the decision in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Nouneet Kuma, AIR 1995 SC 77. To call more candidates for viva voce test so that Public Service Commission will be able to get talented candidate is not an appealing argument. The argument that more are to be called for viva voce test to further public interest is accordingly to our considered view, only to be stated to be rejected. The acceptance of the argument that more candidates are to be called for viva voce test by rounding off percentage of marks will result in justice to meritorious candidates and result in clear error of law which no Court can support.
Operative part
From above discussion, it follows that law stated by the learned Single Judge in Asha Mehta's case (supa) and that by the Division Bench in Raj Deep Singh's case (supra) do not represent the correct law. We disapprove the same. Method of rounding off percentage of marks obtained in the written examination for bringing a candidate into the field of choice for selection to a post is not warranted by law. We are also of the considered view that for selecting candidates to any post on Civil Writ Petition No.1659 of 2011 3 competition marks obtained in the examination/test is not to be rounded off to the next whole number unless the Rule governing the selection specifically provides for the same.” In view of the well settled proposition of law as above, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 08th Sept., 2011. Seema-II (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 08 Sep 2011. The bench was NIRMALJIT KAUR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.