Rakesh Parkash vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 357 P&H

LPA No. 1057 of 2021                                              -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
               AT CHANDIGARH

                                                   LPA No. 1057 of 2021
                                                   Date of decision: 02.02.2022

Rakesh Parkash                                                    ... Appellant

                           Versus
State of Punjab and others                                        ... Respondents
CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE

Present:    Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.

            Mr. Avinit Avasthi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
            (The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing
            since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual Court).
                           ****

ARUN PALLI, J.

This is an intra-court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters

Patent, against an order and judgment dated 06.10.2020, rendered by the

learned Single Judge, vide which the writ petition preferred by the appellant

has since been dismissed.

In response to an advertisement No.8, dated 10.12.2016, issued

by the Punjab Public Service Commission, (for short, 'the Commission'),

the appellant competed for selection against the five posts of Punjab Civil

Services (Executive Branch), to be filled through Register A-II. The

appellant failed to make the cut, as he obtained 59.87 marks and was placed

at serial No.10 in the select list published by the Commission on 03.09.2018.

Whereafter, vide a writ petition, referred to above, he questioned the validity

and fairness of the selection process on multiple grounds. And, as can be

discerned from the impugned judgment, the precise grievance of the

appellant has been that he was wrongly deprived of one extra mark, for his

Annual Confidential Report ('ACR' for short), for the year 2010-11, was 1 of 7

graded as 'Good', whereas, it ought to have been entered as 'Very Good'.

Secondly, post issuance of the recruitment notice dated 8.12.2016, and

initiation of selection process, the criteria for selection was altered/changed

by the Commission, and thus, the selection, in its entirety, was vitiated.

Further, albeit 15 marks were assigned for the interview, but the

method/criteria as to how these marks were to be allocated/awarded, was not

disclosed.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, who has

merely reiterated the arguments that were advanced before the learned

Single Judge, and perused the record.

Concededly, the selection, appointment and service conditions

of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch), are governed/regulated by

the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976, (for short, '1976

Rules'). Though, the learned Single Judge has extracted the relevant rules

and clauses of the recruitment notice in the impugned judgment, but for

facility of reference and examining the limited issue that arises for

consideration, we consider it expedient to refer to those. Rule 10 (amended

in 2011) of the 1976 Rules reads as thus:-

"10. Preparation of Register A-II of accepted candidates.-(1) The Commission shall invite the applications from amongst the members of Group 'A' and Group 'B' services, serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab holding ministerial appointments not below the level of Senior Assistants, which shall be submitted to the Commission through proper channel along with their service record.

(2) The applications received alongwith the service records of the candidates shall be processed by the

2 of 7

Commission for adjudging the suitability of such candidates, and after conducting a screening test, the Commission shall prepare a list of eligible persons, three times of the number of vacancies.

(3) For final selection of the candidates from the list prepared under sub-rule (2), the Commission shall determine the suitability of candidates on the basis of Annual Confidential Reports, Seniority, Experience and Performance in the Interview by associating two representatives of the State Government; one serving as Secretary, Personnel and General Administration and the other senior IAS officer nominated by the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab:

Provided that the members of the Commission and representatives of the State Government involved in the selection, shall certify in respect of the each candidates that they have no relation with him.

(4) The name of a person shall not be included in the final list unless he-

(a) is a confirmed hand and has completed eight years continuous service under the Government.

(b) was under the age of fifty four years on the first day of November immediately preceeding the date of submission of names by the concerned authorities; and

(c) is a Graduate of a recognized university.

(5) A list of selected candidates shall be forwarded to the Government by the Commission for entering their names in Register A-II as accepted candidates and these names shall be entered in this register in the order in which they are recommended by the Commission".

A bare analysis of sub-rule 2 of Rule 10 of the 1976 Rules

(ibid), shows that a screening test of all the candidates is conducted by the

Commission. Whereafter, a list of eligible candidates, three times the

3 of 7

number of vacancies, is prepared. Further, sub-rule 3 reveals that final

selection is made on the basis of their ACRs, seniority, experience and

performance in the interview. We may now refer to Clause 11.2 of the

recruitment notice, which sets out the criteria for making selection:

11.2 Criteria for making selection:

The criteria to be adopted by the Commission is as follows:

             Sr. No.             Details            Weight-age (Marks)


             3        Assessment     of     Service 20
                      Records (ACRs/APARs)

Ex facie, and as recorded by the learned Single Judge, out of the

total 100 marks, in sync with sub-rules 2 and 3, 50 marks were allocated to

screening test, 15 for length of service, 20 for assessment of ACRs and 15

for interview. Thus, it was concluded that selection carried out by the

Commission was as per the 1976 Rules.

As for the grievance that appellant ought to have been awarded

1 (one) extra mark regarding ACR for the year 2010-11: the argument

advanced before the learned Single Judge was that of the total numeric

grading of 100 marks, the appellant was assigned the numeric grading and

rating of 61 by the Reporting Officer. Therefore, in terms of the table (at

page 77 of the paper book), the numeric grading being in the range of 61-

80%, the appellant ought to have been graded as 'Very Good'. And, as a

necessary consequence, in terms of the method/criteria published by the

Commission, vide notice dated 9.3.2018 (ibid), the appellant was entitled to

one additional mark, i.e. rather than two, he was entitled to three marks.

4 of 7

However, in reference to the specific stand set out by the respondents in their

reply, the learned Single Judge concluded that even though the appellant was

assigned the numeric grading of 61 by the Reporting Officer, but yet his

overall grading was recorded as 'Good', which was endorsed by the

Accepting Authority, as well. Further, for the Accepting Authority happened

to be the final authority to assign the final grade, it could be better than the

grade assigned by the Reporting Officer or otherwise. The Accepting

Authority, in the matter at hand, also graded the appellant as 'Good', which

was final. Not just that, the ACR in question pertained to the year 2010-11,

which was still intact and operative, and significantly was never questioned

by the appellant in all these years.

As regards the argument that post initiation of the selection

process, the Commission, vide public notice dated 9.3.2018, referred to

below, altered the selection criteria: we may hasten to point out that all that

was sought to be clarified vide said notice was the mechanism/method to

allocate or award marks for the length of service as also the ACRs of the

candidates:

Criteria for length of Service and ACR's Marks Length of Service Marks = 15 Minimum age for entry into Govt. 18 Year Service Minimum service for eligibility 08 Year Therefore, Minimum age for eligibility 26 Year Maximum age for eligibility 54 Year Maximum Service which can be 28 Year considered Marks for each year of service =15/28 0.54 marks for each complete year Marks for ACRs = 20 marks for last 5 year ACRs Outstanding 04 marks Very Good 03 marks Good 02 marks Average 01 mark

5 of 7

Apparently, if the recruitment notice and the mechanism, set out

in the public notice (ibid), are juxtaposed, it irresistibly shows that there,

indeed, was no deviation in the selection criteria. As indicated earlier, in

terms of the criteria envisaged in the recruitment notice, 15 marks were

allocated for length of service, and 20 marks were assigned for assessment

of ACRs. Likewise, the public notice, extracted above, reveals that 15

marks, that were assigned for length of service and 20 marks allocated for

the ACRs, remained unaltered or unchanged. Except, as observed by the

learned Single Judge, that vide public notice, the criteria as regards awarding

marks for length of service and assessment of ACRs was simply spelt out to

determine the inter se merit of the candidates: "In such circumstances, the

question is whether there is any change in the criteria or not. On the

consideration of the matter, this Court has come to the conclusion that the

public notice uploaded on 09.03.2018, does not prove that the criteria has

been changed after the issuance of recruitment notice. In fact, through the

public notice, the commission has only explained the criteria adopted for

calculating the marks/weightage. Such public notice does not amount to

change in the criteria. In the Service Rules, marks/weightage to be given to

each category, has not been provided. Hence, the Public Service Commission

was at liberty to determine the suitability of the candidates in accordance with

the Rules. The Public Service Commission has, no doubt, increased the

allocation of marks for screening test and consequently, reduced the

weightage/marks for the length of service and Annual Confidential Reports

when compared with the recruitment notice issued on 21.04.2014. However,

the writ petitioner has not filed the present writ petition with regard to the

selection of the candidates pursuant to the recruitment notice dated

6 of 7

21.04.2014. It is the pleaded case of the writ petitioner that he submitted an

application on 08.12.2016. Therefore, the recruitment notice issued in the

year 2014, is of no relevance. Still further, the criteria notified in the

recruitment notice is not established to have been violated. The public notice

has only spelled out the manner of calculation of the marks within each

category. Such public notice does not amount to change in criteria....."

As for the plea that although 15 marks were assigned for the

interview, but the method/criteria as to how those marks were to be

allocated/assigned was not disclosed: the learned Single Judge rejected the

argument as neither any rule nor any instructions/circular, mandating the

Commission to make any such disclosure, was referred to. Further, the

candidates were evaluated on the basis of their performance by the Selection

Committee, that was constituted in terms of sub-rule 3 (ibid).

Upon being pointedly asked, learned counsel for the appellant

failed to show, if the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge

either suffered from any illegality or were contrary to the record.

In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are

dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order and judgment

The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed.

             (RAVI SHANKER JHA)                           (ARUN PALLI)
               CHIEF JUSTICE                                JUDGE

February 02, 2022
AK Sharma
                 Whether speaking / reasoned: YES
                 Whether Reportable:          YES/NO




                               7 of 7