LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

MOHINDER SAIN GARG ETC. ETC vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS on 15 November, 1990

Cites 1 provisionsCites 7 judgmentsCited by 5
Official PDFBench Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, Fathima Beevi
PETITIONER:
MOHINDER SAIN GARG ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT15/11/1990
BENCH:
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
BENCH:
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)
CITATION:
1990 SCR Supl. (3) 108 1991 SCC (1) 662
JT 1990 (4) 704 1990 SCALE (2)1014
ACT:
Civil Service:
Excise and Taxation Inspectors-- Appointment of--Exami-
nation-Viva voce--Value and importance of--Fixing 25 of
total marks Whether arbitrary and excessive--Calling for a
large number of candidates--Whether vitiates selec-
tion--Quashing of selection-Desirability of.
HEADNOTE:
For filling up 47 posts of Excise and Taxation Inspec-
tors in Punjab, the Chairman, Selection Committee issued an
advertisement in newspaper. The advertisement stated that
there would be three written papers in English, Punjabi and
General Knowledge of Degree Standard and would carry 100
marks each. Those who obtain 33% in each paper and 40% in
the aggregate were to be called for interview which would
carry 100 marks.
The examination was held and the Selection Committee
called more than 1200 candidates for interview. By the time
the Selection commenced the vacancies increased to 54.

etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., [1971] 2 SCR 430; Miss Nishi Maghu and Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors., [1980] 4 SCC 95; Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors., [1981] 1 SCC 722; Koshal Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of J & K and Ors., [1984] 3 SCR 407, relied on.

State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin and Ors., [1987] Supp. SCC 401; Mahmood Alam Tariq and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 241; distinguished. Liladhar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [1981] 4 SCC 159, referred to.

2. Even if the entire selection is quashed and a direction given to hold the viva voce test afresh by reducing the percentage of marks, it would be a futile exercise so far as the two Writ Petitioners are concerned, as they stood no chance of being selected even remotely. According to Ashok Kumar Yadav’s case candidates should be called only three times the number of seats available for appointment. If that criteria was applied then the two Writ Petitioners had absolutely no chance of being called for interview for the one post of Taxation Inspector in the category of backward class. [135C-E]. & Ors. etc. etc. [1985] Suppl. SCR 657, referred to.

3.1. In the general category 897 candidates had appeared in interview and so far as one of the four appellants, viz., Rajesh Kumar Saili is concerned, he secured 26 marks in interview and his position was 668th. He stood no chance of being called for interview if candidates upto three times the number of the posts were called for interview. Even if the percentage of marks in viva voce was reduced from 25 per cent to 15 per cent he stood no chance of selection even remotely. [135G-H]

3.2. The respondents are directed to appoint the other three appellants belonging to general category on the posts of Taxation Inspector/Excise Inspector as the case may be, if they are otherwise found suitable for these posts. It is further made clear that in case anyone of these appellants has become over-aged during this period, this would not be considered as a disqualification for their appointment to the above post. [136G-H; 137-A]