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

PETITIONER: SHRI KANWAR SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the division  Bench of  the Punjab  and Haryana  High Court, made on October 1,1996 in CWP No.15380/96.      Admittedly, the  petitioner was  promoted on an earlier occasion temporarily, as Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 1988 but  ultimately the  same came to be challenged and was set aside  by an order of this Court. Thereafter, as per the directions of  this court, written examination and interview were conducted.  In the  written examination. the petitioner secured 105  marks . subordinate service selection Board has allotted 75%  of the  marks to  the written  test and 25% of marks to  the interview.  The petitioner  having secured 105 marks, could  not be  selected since he could not make up in the interview.  as many  as 97 candidates were selected. The petitioner having remained unsuccessful, filed writ petition in the  High court  challenging the  selection  process.  He contended  that  since  he  had  previous  experience,  some weightage would  have been  given out  of 25%  marks on  the basis  of   the  previous   experience.  However,  since  no consideration in  that behalf  was given,  the selection was bad in  law, The  High court has pointed out and in our view rightly, that  it is  a competition open to all the persons. By  fortuitous   circumstances  of  the  previous  temporary promotion, separate  marks could  not be  allocated for  the previous service  in which  event such  persons will steal a march over the other candidates in the open competition. The view taken  by the High court is clear, justifiable and well founded.  The   learned  counsel   for  the  petitioner  has contended that  the persons  who secured 80 marks in written examination have  been selected by granting full 25 % of the marks while  the petitioner  who secured  105 marks  in  the written examination  could not  be selected by being awarded some out  of 25  marks. As  a consequence,  the selection is arbitrary. The  learned counsel seeks to place before us the list of  such candidates  who secured 80 marks, said to have been published by the Board. Since the document had not been made part  of the  record in  the High Court, we cannot look into the document. It is not the case of the petitioner that

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

he had  raised this  point in  the High  court and  the High court has  failed to  consider it  . On  the other hand, the High Court has pointed out thus:      "Records now  before us  show  that      the petitioner  did not  do  fairly      wall  to  get  high  marks  at  the      interview.  consequently,   persons      who  got   similar  marks  as  that      secured by  the petitioner  in  the      written test,  got higher  rank  by      virtue of the marks secured by them      at  the  interview.  Marks  in  the      written  test  together  with  that      obtained at  the interview  decided      the rank in the select list."      It indicates  that the  High court  has considered  the record of  the selection  Board  placed  before  it  and  on comparative  evaluation   of  the   candidates  who  secured combined marks  in the  written  test  as  well  as  in  the interview, 97  candidates were  selected on the basis of the merit, the  High court has pointed out that no allegation of mala fides  or arbitrariness  of selection  was made.  Under these circumstances,  we do  not find  any illegality in the judgment of the High court warranting interference.      The special leave petition is dismissed.