http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: NARINDER PAL SHARMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/11/1994

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (1) 532        1994 SCALE  (5)136

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  ORDER 1.   Leave granted. 2.   This  appeal by special leave arises from the  judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in WP No. 10062 of 1993 dated  18-4-1994.  The undisputed facts are that as per  the procedure  under  Punjab Civil Services  (Executive  Branch) (Class  1)  Rules,  1976 to fill up nine  vacancies  in  the Punjab Civil Service Executive Branch, nominations have been called  from various departments.  The rules do not  provide the procedure for nomination + From the Judgment and Order dated 18-4-1994 of the  Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 10062 of 1993 533 by  the  heads of departments, Chief  Ministers,  Ministers, Chief  Justice  of  High  Court  etc.   For  the  posts   of stenographer and the senior clerks working the  Secretariat, the  Chief Secretary is the. head of the department.   Since there  are  more than the required number to  be  nominated, namely, while three persons out of the senior  stenographers and  two  persons  out  of  clerical  cadre,  more  than  80 candidates  have  applied for.  With a view  to  screen  the candidates,   the   Chief   Secretary   had   evolved,    by administrative order the procedure, namely, for the ACRs  he awarded   70  marks  categorising  that  candidates   having ’Outstanding’  would get six marks, "Very Good" four  marks, ’Good’  two  marks, ’Average’ one mark,  ’appreciation’  one mark,  "adverse  remarks" one mark minus.  Equally,  he  had also  distributed  10  marks experience-wise,  i.e.  for  10 years’ experience  four marks, for 10-15 years’  experience  6 marks, for 15-20 years’ experience  6 marks, and for 20 years’ experience he provided 10 marks.  In addition, he has also  conducted ability test i.e. essay writing  in  English and Punjabi.  He awarded 10 marks in each subject.  Thereby, he  allotted 20 marks.  While determining the  ability  test candidates  who secured more than 33% were  recommended  and the  candidates who secured 33% and less were omitted to  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

considered   for   recommendation.   The   appellants   have challenged the procedure in the High Court.  The High  Court in  the  impugned order has upheld the action taken  by  the Chief Secretary.  Thus, this appeal by special leave. 3.It  is contended initially that the marks secured  in  the ability  test alone were taken into consideration and  those candidates  who did not secure 33% and below  were  excluded and  those  who  secured 33%  and  above  were  recommended. Similar  tests were not conducted in other  departments  and that,   therefore,  the  procedure  adopted  by  the   Chief Secretary  was  arbitrary, illegal and  unjust  denying  the right  to consideration of the claims of the appellant.   So it  violates Article 14 of the Constitution.   Prima  facie, finding the argument to be acceptable, we directed the Chief Secretary  to  file an affidavit as  regards  the  procedure adopted  in recommending the candidates.  In  the  affidavit filed   now  before  this  Court,  he  had   explained   the aforestated  procedure  in awarding the marks.   We  have  a grave  doubt about validity of the procedure  of  nomination basis  whether  does not violate Articles 14 and 16  of  the Constitution,  since  none  has questioned  nor  argued  the point, we need not go into that question.  We have seen that out  of  the  five  candidates  recommended  by  the   Chief Secretary,  from  the  senior  stenographers’  cadre   three candidates  were already interviewed by the  Public  Service Commission and were selected and were accordingly appointed. They  had  secured higher marks in the order of  merit  even including  the  actual marks got in the ability  test.   The criteria  of excluding these candidates who secured 33%  and below  is not valid in view of awarding separate  marks  for ACRs  and experience.  Take the case of senior  Assistant H.S. Sodhi.  He secured 60 marks for ACRs and 10 marks  i.e. total marks for experience, while Nanak Singh and Baldev Ram got only 56 and 54 ACRs and 8 each for experience, yet  they were selected.  So the criteria adopted is unjust and unfair which violates Articles 14 and 16.  So the criteria must  be to include for consideration all 534 those who secured marks on all heads and to recommend  those who   secured  highest  in  aggregate  since  three   senior stenographers got total highest marks, their  recommendation is   valid.   Thus  we  do  not  find  any   illegality   in recommending 5 candidates to consider three posts out of the quota of the senior stenographers’ cadre. 4.So  far as Senior Assistants are concerned, we  find  that the second appellant Harjinder Singh Sodhi is also  eligible for  recommendation  and to be considered by  the  PSC.   He secured  60 marks for his ACRS, 10 marks for experience  and 5.5  marks  for  the ability test.   All  put  together,  he secured 75.5 marks while the recommended candidates, namely, Nanak Singh, Senior Assistant had secured only 56 marks  for ACRS, 8 marks for experience and 9.5 marks for ability  test in  total 73.5 marks.  Baldev Ram had secured 54  marks  for ACRS, 8 marks for experience and 9.9 marks for ability  test i.e.  in total 71.5 marks.  Thereby, Harjinder Singh  Sodhi, the second appellant got more marks than the two respondents recommended  by  the  Chief  Secretary.   Since  the   first appellant  has secured only 56 marks for ACRS, 10 marks  for experience and 6 marks for ability test, in total 72  marks, he does not become eligible for recommendation.  Under these circumstances,  the  appeal is allowed and  a  direction  is issued  to  the  Chief Secretary to recommend  the  case  of Harjinder  Singh Sodhi for consideration by the PSC  towards the quota of the two candidates from the Senior  Assistants’ cadre.  In case the second appellant is found eligible, then

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

one  of the candidates who did not secure higher marks  than that  of the second appellant awarded by the PSC, has to  be excluded.   The Chief Secretary is accordingly  directed  to recommend  the  name of the 2nd appellant,  Harjinder  Singh Sodhi  within  a period of four weeks from the date  of  the receipt  of this order for consideration by the PSC.  It  is for  the  PSC  to consider  and  take  appropriate  decision according  to law.  He should request the PSC to dispose  of the  case  of the second appellant within a period  of  four weeks thereafter.  The appeal is accordingly allowed and the writ is issued as indicated above.  No costs. 535