Bhanu Pratap v. State of Haryana and Ors.
G The Judgment of the Court was delivere by
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. In this appeal we are called upon to decide an issue
pertaining to an appointment to the Post of Subordinate Judge
H under the Haryana Civil Services [Judicial Branch] Examination
BHANU PRATAP v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 741
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
,- which was advertised in 2003 and for which the selection A
process was completed in 2004. Thereafter two candidates
who alone were selected have been appointed and joined their
services on 18.03.2005 and 07.07.2005, respectively.
3. Even subsequent thereto advertisements have been B ... issued for filling up similar vacancies in 2008 and 2010 which
.J process was also long completed and persons selected have
also been appointed pursuant to the said selection process.
We are also informed that in 2011, further 111 posts have been
advertised for which selection process has been initiated.
4. The appellant herein submitted his application as
against the aforesaid advertisement issued by the respondents
in 2003 for filling up 73 posts of Subordinate Judges under
~
Haryana Civil Services [Judicial Branch] Examination. The
_ .. appellant appeared in the written tests and was declared D
_) successful and thereafter he was called for interview. Incidentally
out of 3,471 candidates who appeared for the written
examination, only 3 persons obtained more than 50% marks
in the written examination and were eligible under the extant
Rules for being called for interview/viva-voce. All the 3 E candidates called for interview duly appeared before the
interview board constituted by the Haryana Public Service
Commission [for short "the Commission"] in which one of the
.. then Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was called
.; as an Expert Advisor who was present during the process of F .. the interview.
5. It transpires from the records that in the interview
conducted by the Commission total marks allocated for the
interview/viva-voce test were 120 and one Shri Vivek Nasir
obtained 72 marks out of 120, whereas, Shri Anubhav Sharma G
~ was awarded 60 marks out of 120. However, the present
-- ). appellant could get only 20 marks out of the total marks of 120
for the interview. Since he failed to qualify in terms of Rule 8 of
the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules [for short "the
Rules"] he was not appointed to the said post. H
A 6. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed a Writ Petition .,
before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh which
was registered as CWP No. 12205 of 2005 in which he sought
for a writ of mandamus directing his appointment to the post
of Judicial Officer. In the Writ Petition his contention was that
B since he received total aggregate marks of 508 out of 1020
total marks, i.e., 49.8% and since the marks obtained by him, '
was short of 50% by just two marks the same should be rounded
off to the qualifying marks of 50% in aggregate in terms of Rule
8 of the Rules. It was contended that shortage of the percentage
c of half or less was to be rounded off and when the petitioner
had obtained 49.8% in the whole aggregate after viva voce test,
he should have been treated to have obtained 50% and should
have been deemed to have qualified.
7. The aforesaid contention of the appellant, however, was /.
D rejected by the Single Judge of the High Court and the Writ
--Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed, which order was
further upheld by the Division Bench on appeal. Being
aggrieved by the dismissal of his Writ Petition and Letters
Patent Appeal, the appellant filed the present appeal in this
E Court, on which we heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties who had also taken us through the entire records.
8. Appointment to the post of Subordinate Judge (HCS
Judicial Branch) is guided by Haryana Civil Services [Judicial
Branch] Rules, which are statutory in nature. Rule 7(1), 7 (2) and
8(1) specifically deal with the minimum marks that a candidate 'f
has to obtain to qualify in the written test and also for selection.
The said provisions are extracted hereinbelow for ready
reference: -
G "7(1) No candidate shall be credited with any marks in any
paper unless he obtains at least thirty three per cent marks '
in it.
'-..._
_).
(2) No candidate shall be called for the viva-voce test
unless he obtains at least fifty per cent qualifying marks in
H the aggregate of all the written papers and thirty three per
BHANU PRATAP v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 743
---- •'f"'"
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
cent marks in the language paper, Hindi in (Devnagri A
Script).
······························.•·························
-'
························································
4'
B 8(1) No candidates shall be considered to have qualified
in the examination unless he obtains at least 50% marks
in the aggregate papers including viva-voce test."
9. In the advertisement issued by the respondents for filling
up the said post along with instructions and information for c candidates it was specifically mentioned that the syllabus of the
examination would be as contained in Schedule under Rule 9
-\ of para 'C' of the Rules relating to the appointment of
-- Subordinate Judges in Haryana. The said syllabus was set out _, in detail showing the compulsory papers, description of ·
subjects, maximum marks for each subject. It was also D
communicated that for viva-voce test there will be 120 marks.
The rules with regard to the conduct of the written examination
were also set olit therein. In clause (g)(i) thereof it was indicated
that no candidate shall be considered to have qualified in the
E examination unless he obtains at least 50% marks in the
·I.
aggregate of all papers including viva-voce test. It was also
stated thereafter in the advertisement that the merit of the ... qualified candidates shall be determined by the Haryana Public -,.
Service Commission strictly according to the aggregate marks
obtained in the written papers and viva-voce. For the viva-voce F
test it was provided in the advertisement that it will be a test
relating to the matters of general interest and is intended to test
the candidate's alertness, intelligence and general outlook. It
Nas reiterated thereunder also that the merit of the qualified
.<!: :andidates would be determined by the Haryana Public Service G
:ommission strictly according to the aggregate mar_ks
)btained in the written papers and viva-voce.
10. As stated hereinbefore, a sitting Judge of the Punjab
md Haryana High Court was associated as an Expert Advisor
H --,'
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.
A at the time of viva-voce test which consisted of 120 marks. The
total 120 marks of viva-voce test were divided under four heads
evaluating the personal quality of the candidates as follows: -
Ma) Awareness, outlook, Subject knowledge 30 marks
and general interest
b) Articulation and expression 30 marks
c) Intelligence and alertness 30 marks
d) Poise, bearing and other qualities 30 marks"
C The Judge of the High Court was to classify a candidate as
Expert Advisor under the following categories: -
MC lass
Excellent
V. Good
Good
Above average
Average
Poor
(E)
(G+)
(G)
(A+)
(A)
(P)
Marks Range
26-30
21-25
16-20
11-15
06-10
01-05"
11. It is brought out on records that the Judge present in
the interview graded Anubhav sharma as 'G', i.e., 'Good' placing
F him within the mark range of 16-20, whereas Bhanu Partap was
graded as MP", i.e., 'Poor' placing him within the mark range of
01-05 and Vivek Nasir was graded as MA+", i.e., 'Above
Average' placing him within the mark range of 11-15. The
aforesaid grading criteria to be awarded by the Judge for
G evaluating the personal quality of the candidates were circulated
to the members of the Selection Committee for viva-voce
examination as a guideline before the viva-voce examination.
Therefore, the minimum marks which could be given to the
appellant in each of the heads, was only one and in this case,
the Chairman, and the members of the Commission had given
BHANU PRATAP v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 745
. .,.. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.] -
him the maximum marks, i.e., 5 marks, under each of above- A
mentioned four heads and consequently he got 20 marks out
of 120 ascrib.ed to the viva-voce examination.
.;
12. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before
..J us that since the appellant had received 49.8% in aggregate B in all the tests including viva-voce, the same could and should
have been rounded off to 50% in aggregate which would have
entitled the appellant to be selected for appointment to the
-
aforesaid post. Counsel also submitted that during the earlier
selection immediately preceding the selection in question there
c was the requirement of grading under three factors/categories
only and the same came to be varied/increased in the selection
in question from three to six. He contended that this increasing
" of grading factors/categories from three to six envisages much .~
_, wider criteria in the selection process in question which
amounted to arbitrariness. D
13. The aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing
for the appellant were however refuted by counsel appearing
for the respondents by submitting that the respondents have
strictly and minutely followed and complied with the Rules which E are statutory in nature and, therefore, the present appeal has
no merit at all. He also submitted that there cannot be addition
(
of any marks unless the same is specifically permitted and ., provided either under the Rules or in the advertisement and,
therefore, there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the selection
F in question.
14. In the light of the records placed before us we have
considered the aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing
.. for the parties. The relevant Rules have already been extracted
above. A bare reading of the aforesaid rules would make it G
A' .+ crystal clear that in order to qualify in the written examination a
candidate has to obtain at least 33% marks in each of the
papers and a\ \eas\ soo/., qualifying marks in the aggregate in
all the written papers. \he further mandate of the ru\es \s \ha\ a
candidate would not be considered as qua\ified in the \-\
axamination unless he obtains at least 50% marks in the
7
-A aggregate including viva-voce test. When emphasis is given in
the Rules itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making
it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be
obtained by the concerned candidate there cannot be a
question of relaxation or rounding off as sought to be submitted '
B by the counsel appearing for the appellant. ..
15. There is no power provided in the statute nor any such
stipulation was made in the advertisement and also in the
statutory Rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace
marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum
requirement. In our considered opinion, no such rounding off
or relaxation was permissible. The Rules are statutory in nature
and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or
possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for
t
..
providing or giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation.
D 16. We may also draw support in this connection from a
decision of this Court in District Collector & Chairman,
Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society,
Vizianagaram and Another. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi
E reported in (1990) 3 SCC 655. In the said judgment this Court
has laid down that when an advertisement mentions a particular
1
qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the
same then it is not a matter only between the appointing
authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all •
those who had similar or even better qualifications than the
appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post
because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in
the advertisement.
17. In the case of Umrao Singh Vs. Punjabi University,
G Patiala and Ors. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 365 this Court
1 while dealing with the power of Selection Committee for
relaxation of norms held thus: -
"Another aspect which this Court has highlighted is scope
for relaxation of norms. Although Court must look with
H respect upon the performance of duties by experts in the
..
BHANU PRATAP v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 747
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
respective fields, it cannot abdicate its functions of A
ushering in a society based on rule of law .• Once it is most '
satisfactorily established that the Selection Committee did
not have the power to relax essential qualification, the
entire process of selection so far as the selected
candidate is concerned gets vitiated. In P.K. Ramchandra B
Iyer and Ors. v. Union oflndia and Ors. (1984)1LLJ314SC · I
this Court held that once it is established that there is no
power to relax essential qualification, the entire process
of selection of the candidate was in contravention of the
established norms prescribed by advertisement. The c
power to relax must be clearly spelt out and cannot
otherwise be exercised."
18. Let us also examine the issue from another angle. If
rounding off is given to the appellant as sought for by him there
has to be similar rounding off for a person who has missed 33% D
in one of the papers just by a whisker. To him and to such a
person who could not get 50% in aggregate in the written test,
if this rule of rounding off is offered then they would also get
qualified. In that event, there would be no meaning of having a
rule wherein it is provided that a person must at least have the E
minimum marks as provided for thereunder. Somewhere a line
has to be drawn and that line has to be strictly observed which
is like a Lakshman Rekha and no variation of the same is
possible unless it is so provided under the Rules itself. Both
the Selection Committee as also the appointing authority are F
bound to act within the parameters of the Rules which are
statutory in nature and any violation or any relaxation thereof
whether by way of giving grace marks or rounding off would be
acting beyond the parameters prescribed which would be
illegal. G
19. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal,
which is dismissed but leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
D.G. Appeal dismissed. H