http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4562 of 2007

PETITIONER: Ram Avtar Patwari and Ors

RESPONDENT: State of Haryana and Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/09/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   4562            OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.18772 of 2005 WITH    (Civil Appeal No.                /07 @SLP (C) 18768/2005, Civil Appeal No.    4564             /07 @SLP (C) 18765/2005, Civil Appeal No.    4565             /07 @SLP (C) 18769/2005, Civil Appeal No.    4566             /07 @SLP (C) 18261/2005, Civil Appeal No.    4567             /07 @SLP (C) 18771/2005, Civil Appeal No.    4568             /07 @SLP (C) 18766/2005, Civil Appeal No.    4569             /07 @SLP (C) 18770/2005, Civil Appeal No.    4570             /07 @SLP (C) 18373/2005, Civil Appeal No.    4571             /07 @SLP (C) 18767/2005, Civil Appeal No.    4572             /07 @SLP (C) 20014/2005, Civil Appeal No.    4573             /07 @SLP (C) 8270/2006.

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted. 2.      Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of Punjab  and Haryana High Court allowing the Civil Writ Petitions filed  by non official respondents.  

3.      Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

       The Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter  referred to as the ’Board’) issued an advertisement dated  7.11.1992 calling for applications for filling up 1248 posts of  Patwar candidates to be deputed to the Patwar Training School   and on completion of training, for appointment as Patwaris.   Appellants had applied for the said posts. The list of the  selected candidates was finalized and displayed from which it  transpired that against the advertised posts 2395, candidates  had been recommended by the Board for admission to the  Patwar Training School. One of the writ petitioners filed an  application to the Board asking for the supply of details of the  performance of the selected candidates, but those were not  given. The selection was impugned in the writ petitions on  several grounds.  It was pointed out that the selection beyond  the advertised posts was bad in law, the marks for  performance in the interview were to be restricted to 15%  whereas in the present case 25 marks were allotted for the  interview and 10 marks were given for handwriting. It was  submitted that a similar provision made for selection for  Patwari candidates was quashed  by the High Court in Satpal  Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana (1995 (3) SLR 787) and the  judgment was affirmed by this Court in Satpal and Ors. v.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

State of Haryana and Ors. (1995 Supp (1) SCC 206). It was  emphasized that the criteria for selection was not only  designed to give undue weightage to viva voce and to bye-pass  the observations in Satpal Singh’s case (supra), it was even  otherwise unsustainable as the guidelines were framed on  19.5.1993, whereas the process of interview had started on the  very next date.  There was room for manipulation as the  records pertaining to all candidates were with the Board well  before 19.5.1993. The then Chief Minister Ch. Bhajan Lal on  26.5.1994 in a meeting held in his Assembly Constituency of  Adampur had clearly stated that promise of one post of  Patwari to each family  has been made  possible.  This had  influenced the selection which is clearly reflected from the fact  that large number of candidates were selected from the  Adampur and Kalka Assembly constituencies represented by  Ch. Bhajan Lal and his son Sh. Chander Mohan.

4.      Stand of the Board was that though 1248 posts were  advertised, 485 candidates who had been earlier selected as a  consequence of the advertisement dated 19.3.1987 out of  which 377 candidates had cleared the course  had been given  appointment.    It was also pointed out that this selection had  been challenged in Satpal Singh’s case (supra) and the  selection and appointment had been quashed and SLP Nos.  2944-45 of 1993 filed by the State of Haryana had been  dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 14.9.1993 with  liberty to the 485 candidates to participate in a fresh selection.   Therefore, after the advertisement 485 posts were available. It  vacant every year and the advertisement was issued in the  year 1992. The projected demands for two years i.e. 1993 and  1994 were taken note of. Further, as a substantial percentage  of Patwaris candidates could not clear the Patwar Training  School  course,  therefore, the same was also taken into  account and ultimately the total number of candidates was  fixed. It was pointed out that selection pursuant to the  advertisement made in 1987 was quashed on the ground that  85% of the marks was reserved for interview, which was  considered excessive. The Board had revised the criteria to  bring it within the framework of Satpal Singh’s case (supra)  and had accordingly reduced the marks for the interview from  85% to 25%. It was also stated that the allegation about the  then Chief Minister influencing the selection was unfounded.   It was also pointed out that it is not a fact that nearly 500  candidates from Adampur and 300 candidates from Kalka had  been selected, as only 350 candidates from district Hisar  which included Adampur constituency and 150 candidates  from Ambala of which Kalka constituency was a part amongst  the first 1200 candidates and this was because of the large  number of applications from that area i.e. about 19000 from  Hisar and 6000 from Ambala district.  

5.      A separate reply was filed by the Chief Minister who  stated that his speech was being read out of context.  

6.      The High Court found that perhaps there was no serious  flaw in the fact that candidates beyond the advertised 1248  posts had been selected.  But it was found that the other  points had merit.  

7.      It was held that in view of what has been stated by this  Court in Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors.  etc. (AIR 1981 SC 487) fixing 25% marks for interview and  another 10 marks for handwriting on the face of it was  unjustified.  It was held that the guidelines indicated in Satpal  Singh’s case (supra) were not followed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

8.      It was held that allotment of marks was designed in a  way to bye-pass the order of the High Court in Satpal Singh’s  case (supra) and pre-eminence was given to viva voce.   Further, there was doubt about the sanctity of the selection.   Accordingly, it was held that the selection was bad and there  was no equity in favour of the selected candidates. There were  mala fides involved in selection. However, time was granted to  appear in a fresh selection and the 1248 Patwaris who are  presently in position were allowed to continue till the end of  July 2007.  

9.      Challenge was made by some others to the non- appointment of some candidates who were selected  in terms  of advertisement No.4/97. The writ petitioners in those cases  claimed that though they were successful in the selection they  were not issued appointment letters.  

10.     Stand of the State Government was that the Government  had decided not to appoint the selected candidates on account  of financial problems. The High Court found that they had  option to appear in subsequent selection when subsequently  any fresh selection process is initiated and their writ petitions  will be considered but it was made clear that there should be  relaxation of conditions of eligibility particularly with regard to  the age of the selected candidates.  

11.     In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the  appellants submitted that the approach of the High Court is  clearly erroneous. The High Court failed to notice that the  position in Satpal Singh’s case (supra) was different. In fact  various other decisions which were clearly applicable to the  facts of the present cases had not been taken note of.  Reference in this case was made to the decisions of this Court  in Anzar Ahmad v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1994 (1) SCC 150),   Kiran Gupta and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2000 (7) SCC  719), Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1981 (4) SCC  159) and Vijay Syal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2003  (9) SCC 401).  Board supported this stand.

12.     Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of  the High Court and learned counsel for the respondents-writ  petitioners on the other hand submitted that the High Court  was justified in its view.

13.     The criteria for selection as fixed by the Board was as  follows:          Academic record                         60 marks          Sports curriculum                                5 marks          Handwriting                                      10 marks         Interview                                               25 marks  

14.     For the process of interview, seven different Committees  were appointed which functioned between 20.5.1993 to  February, 1994. About 1.10 lakhs candidates were interviewed   who were short listed from amongst 1.25 lakhs candidates.  The final result was declared and 2395 candidates were  selected for appointment in terms of Haryana Revenue  Patwaris (Group ’C’) Service Rules, 1981. It is to be noted that  the decision in Satpal Singh’s case (supra) was rendered on  14.9.1993 whereas the criteria had only been framed on  19.5.1993. In  Anzar Ahmad’s case (supra) it was held that  100% marks can be ear-marked for the interview,  if there was  no composite test.  In para 20 it was held as follows:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

       "In the instant case, we find that the  State Government in its letter dated September  20, 1990 has clearly stated that selection  should be made on the basis of interview. On  the basis of this letter the Commission could  have made the selection wholly on the basis of  marks obtained at the interview. But in  accordance with the past practice, the  Commission has made the selection on the  basis of interview while keeping in view the  academic performance and with that end in  view the Commission has allocated 50% marks  for academic performance and 50% marks for  interview. It cannot be held that the said  procedure adopted by the Commission suffers  from the vice of arbitrariness. By giving equal  weight to academic performance the  Commission has rather reduced the possibility  of arbitrariness."

15.     The Anzar Ahmad’s case (supra) was followed by this  Court in A.P. State Financial Corporation v. C.M. Ashok Raju  (1994 (5) SCC 359). In para 9 it was observed as follows:

"We respectfully agree with the ratio in Anzar  Ahmad’s case and hold that the High Court  was not justified in setting aside the allocation  of 25% marks in the viva voce test."

16.     In Kiran Gupta’s case (supra) it was noted in para 25 as  follows:

       "In Anzar Ahmad v. State of Bihar (1994  (1) SCC 150) for appointment to the posts of  Unani Medical Officer the Government  prescribed that the Public service Commission  shall select the candidates on the basis of  interview. The Commission allocated 50%  marks for academic qualification and 50% for  interview. This Court, after referring to the  aforementioned cases and relying upon Lila  Dhar case (1981 (4) SCC 159) upheld the  method of selection by interview alone. That  decision was followed in A.P. State Financial  Corporation V. C.M. Ashok Raju (1994 (5) SCC  359). In that case also selection of candidates  by interview without a written test was upheld  by this Court. The posts of Managers in the  A.P. Financial Corporation were to be filled by  interview without a written test. The  Corporation approved the promotion criteria by  viva voce without a written test and allocated  marks under various heads; among them for  interview 25% and for length of service 15%  marks were prescribed. A Division Bench of  the High Court while upholding the allocation  of marks under various heads, reduced the  percentage of marks for interview from 25% to  15% and increased percentage of marks for  length of service from 15% to 25%. On appeal  this court held that the High Court fell into  patent error in reaching the conclusion that  25% marks for interview were, in the facts of  that case, excessive. It was observed that there  was no dispute that no written test was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

prescribed for promotion to the post of  Manager and above and the  selection/promotion was only by viva voce test,  so no limit could be imposed for prescribing  the marks for interview."

17.     The view was re-iterated in Jaswinder Singh v. State of J  & K (2003 (2) SCC 132) and Vijay Syal’s case (supra).   

18.     Emphasis laid by the High Court on the speech of Ch.  Bhajan Lal appears to  be not wholly appropriate in view of  what has been stated by this Court in Satpal Singh’s case  (supra) in para 5.  

19.     Pursuant to the directions, the marks secured at the  interview and in the handwriting by the selected candidates  were filed. It appears that so far as the marks obtained for  handwriting are concerned, in no case any selected candidate  has secured more than 5 marks. The number of candidates  and the marks secured by them are as follows:

       No. of Candidates                       Marks obtained 8       1 258     2 508     3 300     4 55      5

20.     Learned counsel for the Board stated that records of 119  candidates were not available.  21.     So far as the marks obtained by the selected candidates  (2395) at the interview are concerned, the details are as  follows:                 No. of Candidates               Marks Obtained 5       10 7                               11 15      12 11      13 22      14 38      15 129     16 306     17 381     18 475     19 410     20 239     21 100     22 31      23 6                               24                         1                               25

22.     It is stated that the records of 219 candidates were not  available.

23.     These details and the records therefore do not appear to  have been considered by the High Court. Further, the  distinguishing features noted by this Court vis-‘-vis  those in  Satpal Singh’s case (supra) were also not noticed.  

24.     Since the High Court has not examined the materials in  detail, it would be appropriate for the High Court to reconsider  the matter in the light of decisions referred to above.  

25.     Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that  Satpal Singh’s case (supra) is factually distinguishable. It  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

should also be considered by the High Court.

26.     Since the matter is pending since long, we request the  High Court to dispose of the matter as early as possible  preferably within six months from the receipt of copy of our  judgment. The appellants who are continuing to function as   Patwaris in terms of the order passed by the High Court and  continued by this Court, shall continue till the disposal of the  matter by the High Court. It shall be open to the High Court to  pass such interim orders as it may deem appropriate in  accordance with law.  The appellants were not parties before  the High Court.  If they apply for impleadment, necessary  orders shall be passed by High Court.

27.     The appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs.