Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kapil vs Haryana Public Service … on 20 April, 2021CWP No.22531 of 2020(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.22531 of 2020(O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.04.2021
Kapil
…Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Public Service Commission and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Anil Mehta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate
for respondent no.1 to 3.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
On 15.02.2021, the arguments were heard and the judgment was
reserved.
Thereafter, on 17.02.2021, the writ petition was directed to be
re-listed for hearing with the following order:-
“The hearing of the case was held through video
conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the
Courts.
Through this writ petition filed under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays
for the following substantive reliefs:-
“(b) Certiorari, thereby quashing of the
impugned result dated 12.10.2020 (P-1),
decided by the respondent no.2 vide which
12 candidates has been selected for the post
of Horticulture Development Officer (Class-
II) under the Category of BC-A of Haryana
by giving them undue advantage of their
Masters Degree under the head of personal
achievement which was not even the
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 23:01:58 :::
CWP No.22531 of 2020(O&M) -2-
eligibility criteria in the advertisement dated
29.12.2018 and the rules of Haryana
(Group-C) Service Rules, the action being
illegal, unjust, unconstitutional, arbitrary
and therefore, is liable to be set aside int eh
interest of justice and fair play.
(C) Mandamus, for directing the respondent
No.2 to give the benefit of 06 marks to the
petitioner as well as to treat all the
candidates having M.Sc. in Agriculture
equally in the interest of justice and fair
play.
(d) Mandamus, for staying the
selection/recruitment process initiated by the
respondents for the post of Horticulture
Development Officer (Class-II), the same
being illegal and arbitrary;
(e) Mandamus, thereby directing the
respondents to reserve one post of
Horticulture Development Officer (HDO)
for the petitioner till the final outcome of the
present writ petition.”
After having heard learned counsel for the
parties, this court is of the considered view that the
question which arise for determination is “whether a
State Public Service Commission in absence of the
service rules to the contrary can award certain
additional marks for higher education in the subject
while making selection?
Some facts are required to be noticed.
The Haryana State Public Service
Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’)
issued a recruitment notice inviting applications from
eligible candidates for recruitment to 96 posts of
Horticulture Development Officer (Class-II).
In the advertisement, it was notified that 12
posts are reserved for BC-A category restricted to
residents of the State of Haryana. As per the recruitment
notice, the candidates with the following qualifications
were eligible to apply:-
“Essential qualification:
(c) Degree in B.Sc. Agriculture (Hons.) with
Horticulture as one of the subjects or B.Sc.
Horticulture, from any recognized
university;
(d) Knowledge of Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric
Standard or Higher Education.”
It is not in dispute that the essential
qualifications are as per Haryana Horticultural (Group-
C) Service Rules, 1998. The petitioner and certain others
applied. The petitioner possesses B.Sc.
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 23:01:59 :::
CWP No.22531 of 2020(O&M) -3-
Agriculture(Hons.) with Horticulture as one of the
subject. He has also passed Masters in Agronomy. He
also possess work experience of 2 years.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the
Commission has awarded 6 additional marks to the
candidates possessing Masters Degree in Horticulture.
On 18.01.2021, the following order was
passed:-
“Hearing of the case was held
through video conferencing on account of
restricted functioning of the Courts.
In compliance with the order
dated 23.12.2020, Sh. Kanwal Goyal,
Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of
Haryana Public Service Commission and
states that the petitioner was awarded total
56.515 marks, whereas, last selected
candidate Randeep Singh got 58.995 marks.
He further informed the Court that Randeep
Sigh was not awarded any additional marks
for the subject of M.Sc. (Horticulture).
Learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that the Haryana Public
Service Commission has awarded six
additional marks for M.Sc. (Horticulture)
which is neither the part of the
advertisement nor the Service Rules. He
contends that in absence of enabling power
in the rules, the Haryana Public Service
Commission could not award additional
marks on its own. He further contends that
the criteria for grant of marks was not
published.
Notice of motion.
On the request of this Court, Sh.
Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, accepts notice and
prays for time to file reply.
Reply, if any, be filed before the
next date of hearing with a copy in advance
to counsel for the petitioner.
List on 15.02.2021, for
arguments.”
The respondent-Commission filed its
detailed written statement. It has been pleaded that the
Service Rules prescribe the essential qualification and
the respondent-Commission is well within its right to
formulate its own criteria, particularly, when the rules
are silent. It is further pleaded that in the present case,
the respondent adopted a fair and transparent criteria
before making selection. The criteria as adopted has
been spelled out in Annexure R-3/1, which is extracted as
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 23:01:59 :::
CWP No.22531 of 2020(O&M) -4-
under:-
“The HPSC lays down the following criteria for the post
of Horticulture Development Officer (Class II) in the
Horticulture Department, Haryana.
Total Marks : 100
(a) Written Test : 50
(b) Academic Qualifications/ : 37.5
Personal achievements
Matric Over 80 5
70 to 79.99 4
60 to 69.99 3
50 to 59.99 2
45 to 49.99 1
10+2 Over 80 5
70 to 79.99 4
60 to 69.99 3
50 to 59.99 2
45 to 49.99 1
B.Sc. Agriculture Over 60 10
(Hons.) with 55 to 59.99 8
Horticulture as one 50 to 54.99 6
of the subjects OR 45 to 49.99 4
B.Sc. Horticulture.
Consistency:
60% and above in any two
(Matric, 10+2 and Graduation) 5
55% and above in any two
(Matric, 10+2 and Graduation) 4
50% and above in any two
(Matric, 10+2 and Graduation) 3
M.Sc. Horticulture
60 and above 6
55 to 59.99 4
50 to 54.99 2
Experience in Horticulture Half mark for every one year
development work: experience subject to a maxi-
mum of 1½ marks. Fraction
of a year will not be counted.
M.Phil 1½
Ph.D 2½
Sports 1
Any candidate who won a medal in the Asian Games,
Commenwealth Games or Olympic Games
Viva Voce 12.5 marks”
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that the Commission had no jurisdiction to award
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 23:01:59 :::
CWP No.22531 of 2020(O&M) -5-
additional 6 marks to the candidates possessing M.Sc.
(Horticulture). He further submitted that the selection
criteria has been changed after the selection has started
and, therefore, the selection of the respondent is liable to
be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
the Commission has contended that there is no change in
the criteria.
It is apparent from the reading of the writ
petition that the written examination was held on
27.01.2020. Whereas the criteria (Annexure R-3/1) laid
down by the Haryana Public Service Commission is
dated 06.10.2020.
In such circumstances, the respondents are
required to explain whether there was any criteria
adopted by the Commission before 27.01.2020, the date
on which the written examination was held.
Hence, list this matter for re-hearing, on
03.03.2021.”
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an additional reply has been
filed by the Secretary, Haryana Public Service Commission. It has been
pointed out that the scheme/criteria for examination and syllabus was
published on 11.09.20219 and a day before the interview was to be held, the
Selecting Body took a decision to adopt a criteria for allocating marks in the
interview.
This Bench has once again heard learned counsel for the parties
at length.
Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the arguments as
noticed in the order dated 17.02.2021. This Bench has analyzed the
arguments of learned counsel for the parties and is of the considered view
that the decision of the Selecting Body to award 6 additional marks to the
candidates possessing higher qualification cannot be said to be arbitrary. No
doubt, as per the recruitment notice and Service Rules, a candidate is
required to possess a degree in B.Sc. Agriculture (Hons.) with Horticulture
as one of the subjects or a degree in B.Sc. Horticulture, from any recognized
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 23:01:59 :::
CWP No.22531 of 2020(O&M) -6-
university. However, while assessing the merit of the candidates, the
Selecting Body has to work out a way and manner to select the candidates.
In the present case, a transparent criteria was adopted for allocating the
marks at the time of interview. The aforesaid transparent criteria has been
published. On careful examination thereof, this Bench does not find that the
chosen criteria is patently perverse or arbitrary. This criteria has been
adopted uniformly.
It is well settled that the scope of judicial review in such matters
is limited. Hence, no ground to issue the writ as prayed for is made out.
Dismissed.
20th April, 2021 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 23:01:59 :::
Comments