http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: HARJINDER SINGH SODHI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/09/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This special  leave petition is filed against the order of the  Division Bench  of the Punjab and Haryana High Court made on  January 29,  1996 in  W.P. No.  4882/95. No. doubt, pursuant to  the direction  issued  by  this  Court  on  the earlier occasion  on November  25, 1994,  the  case  of  the petitioner was  considered but  he was  not selected  by the Punjab Public  Service Commission  to Punjab  Civil Services Executive Branch.  Three contentions have been raised by the learned counsel  for the  petitioner; firstly, that when the Court had  directed to  consider the  case of the petitioner vis-a-vis others,  the Public Service Commission should have evaluated the  respective  merit  and    found  whether  the petitioner is  more meritorious  over those persons but that was done.  We find  no force  in the  contention. A counter- affidavit has  been filed   by the Public Service Commission in the  High Court  in which  it was  pointed   out that the relevant    merit  of  the  12th  respondent  vis-a-vis  the petitioner was  considered and  she was  found  to  be  more meritorious. The  second  contention  was  that  the  Public Service Commission  having found him eligible, called on the Government to  find whether  there is  an additional  vacant post which  would show that petitioner was more meritorious. There was  an additional  post vacant but the Government had given false  statement that  the post  was not available. We find no  force in  the contention.  Admittedly, having  been sought for  nomination   to   the posts  available in  1991, merit has  to be  considered only  among the  candidates for appointment  to   nine  posts   arose  in  1991.  Therefore, Government have  rightly  did  not  consider  the  case  for selection for  subsequent vacancies  which would  effect the candidates who  became qualified later. It is then contended that 50% of the marks were allotted to the interview and 50% marks were  allotted for  the record.  Allotment of  50% for interview is  arbitrary in view of the law laid down by this Court. We  find no  force in  the contention.  It is not the case  that   any  written   examination  was  conducted  for consideration of the claims of the parties. Accordingly, the Public Service  Commission and  the Government have  applied the principle  of keeping  50% marks  for the record and 50%

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

for the interview. Under those circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High Court.      The SLP is accordingly dismissed.