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

PETITIONER: VIKRAM SINGH AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BARD, HARYANAAND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/11/1990

BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR 1011            1991 SCC  (1) 686  JT 1990 (4)   528        1990 SCALE  (2)1010

ACT: Civil Services:     Haryana Excise and Taxation Inspectorate (State Service, Class    111)    Rules,    1969--Selection    for     Excise Inspectors--Viva  voce  test-Provision  of  28.5   of  total marks--Whether reasonable.

HEADNOTE:     The  Haryana  Excise and  Taxation  Inspectorate  (State Service, Class III) Rules, 1969 prescribed 250 marks for the written  test and 100 marks for viva voce for  selection  to that  service. In the written examination held by the  State Subordinate Services Selection Board in 1985 for the post of Excise  Inspectors the appellants were  declared  successful for  the general category. They were then interviewed  along with others in March 1986.     In the writ petition preferred by the appellants  before the  High  Court seeking a direction to the  respondents  to declare  the result the affidavit filed by the  Chairman  of the  Selection Board stated that they had awarded viva  voce marks  out of 12.2% of the total marks as per the ruling  of the  Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana,  [1985] Supp.  SCR 657. In the amended petition the appellants  took the  plea that prescribing 100 marks in the Rules  for  viva voce  out of the total of 350 marks, i.e. 28.5%,  was  abso- lutely  arbitrary and contrary to the law so laid  down.  In the meantime, the Selection Board decided to reinterview the candidates  as in its view the requirement of the Rules  had not been properly followed by the previous Board in  respect of alloting of marks in the viva voce. The appellants  chal- lenged the said decision as illegal and unconstitutional.     The  High Court upheld the Rules on the view that  Ashok Kumar Yadav’s case had no application to the selection  made by the Board. Allowing the appeal, the Court,     HELD:  1:  The principle and the ratio  of  Ashok  Kumar Yadav’s  case will apply to the selections made in  the  in- stant  case  also though made by  the  Subordinate  Services Selection Board. [88F] 84     Mohinder Sain  Garg v. State of Punjab &  Ors.,   (Civil Appeal  Nos. 5329-32 of 1990 decided on November  15,  1990)

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

referred to.     Leeladhar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [1985] 4 SCC 149 distinguished.     2.  In the first interview made by applying the  correct principle the appellants were selected and put at Sr. Nos. 3 and  4  in the select list for appointment to  the  post  of Excise Inspectors under the general category. They ought  to have been given appointment accordingly. [89E]     3. Though the second interview on the basis of 100 marks for viva voce test was wrong and illegal but still it  would not be just and proper to cancel the selections already made as  the  selected  candidates had joined  posts  long  hack. [89H-90A]     4.  The respondents should take suitable steps and  pass appropriate orders for appointing the appellants on the post of Excise Inspectors within one month in case they are found otherwise suitable. In case they have become overage  during the  intervening  period, it would not be  considered  as  a disqualification  for their appointment on the  said  posts. [90B]

JUDGMENT: