Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mohit And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 5 April, 2024

Author: Lisa Gill

Bench: Lisa Gill

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047514-DB
                                                                                       1


CWP-27834-2023



                                                            2024:PHHC:047514-DB
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH


                                        CWP-27834-2023
                                        Date of Decision: April 05, 2024

Mohit and another                                                  ..... Petitioners

                          Versus


State of Haryana and others                                       ..... Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI



Present:     Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate for the petitioners (through VC).

             Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

             Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate with
             Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

             Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

                                ****


LISA GILL, J.

1. Prayer in this writ petition is for quashing The Punjab Civil Service

(Judicial Branch) Haryana Amendment Rules, 2023 dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure

P4) to the extent of 200 marks out of total of 1100 marks kept for interview

being violative of judgment titled Ashok Kumar Yadav and others versus

State of Haryana and others 1987 AIR 454 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme

Court. Recruitment process, it is prayed, should be carried only after reduction of

marks of interview.

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047514-DB

CWP-27834-2023

2. It was submitted that petitioners are Law Graduates, eligible for

selection to the posts in question. Grievance raised by petitioners is that marks

reserved for interview/viva voce for selection to the cadre of Punjab Civil

Service (Judicial Branch) is excessive. It was further submitted that recruitment

to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in Haryana is governed by Punjab

Civil Service (Judicial Branch), Rules, 1951 as applicable to the State of

Haryana (for short - 'the Rules'). Copy of said Rules is attached as Annexure P3

with the writ petition. Amendment was carried out in the said Rules by way of

Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Haryana Amendment Rules, 2023.

Petitioners claim to be aggrieved as even after judgment passed by Hon'ble the

Supreme Court in case of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) marks for interview

have not been reduced to or brought at par with 12.12% of total marks as has

been held in the said judgment. Out of total marks of 1100, 200 marks have been

kept for viva voce which are excessive being over the threshold of 12.12%. Same

should be reduced and recruitment process should be carried out only after

reduction in marks for viva voce. It was, thus, prayed that this writ petition be

allowed. It was further prayed that no recruitment process should be carried out

during the pendency of writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 have opposed the writ

petition while submitting that marks, as reserved for viva voce, are absolutely in

order. Reference has been made by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 to

Division Bench judgment of this High Court in Sarika versus State of Haryana

and others 2020(2) SCT 34. It was further submitted that petitioner No. 2, in

any case, is over age in view of Rule 2 of the Rules as applicable to Haryana.

Learned counsel for petitioners responded to this objection by submitting that in

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047514-DB

CWP-27834-2023

Advertisement No. 1 of 2021 issued by Haryana Public Service Commission on

13.01.2021, stipulated/prescribed upper age is 42 as is in the case of

Advertisement No. 1 of 2024 issued on 07.11.2023. Learned counsel for

respondents claim the same to be mere relaxation afforded in terms of applicable

Rules. It was, thus, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

4. We heard learned counsel for parties and have carefully

considered the matter.

5. As per Part C of the Rules (unamended), examination is to be

conducted in three stages:-

               (i)       Preliminary examination
               (ii)      Main examination
               (iii)     Viva voce

6. Clause 7 of the Rules provides that main examination shall consist

of six papers (five written and one viva voce) with their description as under:-

Paper-1 Code of Civil Procedure, Punjab Courts 200 Marks Act, Indian Contract Act, Indian Civil Law-I Partnership Act, Sale of Goods Act, Specific Relief Act and Indian Evidence Act.

Paper-II Hindu Law, Mohammadan Law and 200 Marks Customary Law, Law of Registration and Civil Law-II Limitation.

Paper-III- Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal 200 Marks Procedure and Indian Evidence Act Criminal Law Paper-IV The English paper shall be of 200 marks and shall consist of the following: -

English

1. English Essays (1000-1100 words)

2. Precis 100 Marks

3. Words and Phrases (make sentences of 25 Marks the given words and phrases) 25 Marks

4. Comprehension 25 Marks

5. Corrections 25 Marks

Paper-V Hindi (in Devnagri Script) 100 Marks Language

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047514-DB

CWP-27834-2023

Paper-VI To judge the personal qualities of the 200 Marks candidates The viva-voce test shall relate Viva-Voce to the matters of general interest and is intended to test the candidates alertness, intelligence and general outlook. It shall be conducted in English.

Note (i) Only bare copies of legislative enactment shall be supplied

(ii) Each written paper shall be of three hours duration

(iii) The standard of the language paper shall be that of Matriculation Examination of the Board of School Education, Haryana. Language paper (V) shall comprise the following -

(a) Translation of an English passage into Hindi : 20 Marks

(b) Explanation of Hindi passage in prose and poetry in the same language : 30 Marks

7. As per the amendment carried out in November, 2023, same scheme

and allocation of marks has been maintained with another topic of Haryana

Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 being added. Issue sought to be

raked up is no longer res integra. In the case of Sarika (supra), same issue was

thrown up for consideration. It was the contention of petitioners therein that

allocation of marks for viva voce (i.e. 200) is impermissible. It was also the case

of petitioners therein that selection process has been carried out by the High

Court Committee by usurping the power of Haryana Public Service Commission.

One of questions which arose for consideration in the case of Sarika (supra) was

culled out as under:-

" Even otherwise, the vital question which arises for determination in the present case is whether the prescription of 200 marks for the viva-voce test is ultra vires the constitution or violative of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court."

8. After detailed discussion and with reference to judgments of

Hon'ble the Supreme Court subsequent to case of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra),

no infirmity was found in the prescription of said marks (200) for viva voce. It is

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047514-DB

CWP-27834-2023

specifically held therein that question whether marks prescribed for viva voce

test or interview are excessive has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme

Court in several cases decided after Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra) and

that no strait jacket formula has been judicially evolved for determining whether

the prescription of particular percentage of marks for viva voce introduces an

element of arbitrariness in the process of selection or gives unbridled powers to

recruiting authority to select less meritorious candidates. Hon'ble the Supreme

Court in Mehmood Alam Tariq and others versus State of Rajasthan and

others (1988) 3 SCC 241 while relying upon its earlier judgment in Lila Dhar

v. State of Rajasthan and others (1981) 4 SCC 159 distinguished the case of

Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) and held prescription of 33% marks for interview

for recruitment to Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment

by Combined Competitive Examination Rules), 1962 and other Rules to be

permissible and not violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh versus State of

Jammu and Kashmir 2003 (2) SCC 132 concluded that prescription of 20% of

the marks for viva voce for appointment to post of Sub Inspectors of Police -

Executive/Armed Police was in order. Similarly, in the case of Manish Kumar

Sahi versus State of Bihar and others 2010 (12) SCC 576, prescription of 200

marks for viva voce as against 850 marks for written examination for recruitment

to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the State of Bihar, was not found

to be violative of doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 and 16 of

Constitution of India.

9. Argument raised by learned counsel for petitioners that Division

Bench of this Court in Sarika's case (supra) needs to be revisited and matter

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047514-DB

CWP-27834-2023

referred to a Larger Bench is devoid of any merit, in view of discussion as above.

In view of conclusion arrived at as above, we do not find it necessary to go into

the controversy regarding petitioner No. 2 being over age, the same being totally

academic in the given factual matrix.

10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, this writ

petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.




                                                      (LISA GILL)
                                                        JUDGE




                                                   (AMARJOT BHATTI)
April 05, 2024                                        JUDGE
Rts

             Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
             Whether reportable: Yes/No




                                        6 of 6