Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jitender vs State Of Haryana And Another on 25 January, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010281
CM-465-CWP-2024 in/& -1- 2024:PHHC:010281
CWP-26875-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
103 CM-465-CWP-2024 in/&
CWP-26875-2018
Date of Decision :25.01.2024
Jitender ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Amit Parashar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
CM-465-CWP-2024
Present application has been filed for recalling the order dated
08.01.2024 passed by this Court by which, the main writ petition was
dismissed for non-prosecution.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which
are duly supported by an affidavit, application is allowed. Order dated
08.01.2024 passed by this Court is recalled and the main writ petition is
ordered to be restored to its original number and status and is taken up for
hearing today itself.
CWP-26875-2018
1. In the present petition, grievance of the petitioner is that while
conducting selection to the post of Labour Inspector, which was advertised
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010281
CM-465-CWP-2024 in/& -2- 2024:PHHC:010281
CWP-26875-2018
by the respondents vide advertisement No.05/2016 (Annexure P-1), the
petitioner has not been selected only on the ground that he secured less
marks in the interview and his total aggregate is less than respondent No.3.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has
secured higher marks in the written examination hence, only giving him 03
marks, out of total 25 marks in the interview is totally arbitrary and illegal.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though, no
reply has been filed by the respondent-State but grant of marks by the
interview committee is within their domain and there is no malafide
attached to oust the petitioner from the zone of consideration and this Court
will not sit in appeal over the grant of marks to the petitioner by the
interview committee.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
5. Once, it is a settled principle of law that selection was to be
made on the basis of the marks secured in the written examination as well as
in the interview and it is also a conceded position that the petitioner has
secured less marks in aggregate than respondent No.3 hence, respondent
No.3 is to be treated deserving candidate over and above the petitioner.
6. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner has been given only 03 marks out of total 25 marks in the
interview cannot be entertained by this Court as the said marks was given
by the expert committee keeping in view the performance of the petitioner.
7. Nothing has come on record that there was any malafide due to
which, the petitioner has been given less marks by the interview committee.
8. In the absence of any malafide, this Court will not go into the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010281
CM-465-CWP-2024 in/& -3- 2024:PHHC:010281
CWP-26875-2018
same especially, when no one has been made party by name in the present
petition, the said allegation even if, being attributed to the selection
committee, cannot be entertained.
9. Further, as per the settled principle of law settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in writ petition (civil) No.546-1994 titled
as Madan Lal and others vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir decided on
06.02.1995, once, the candidate already appeared in the interview, the said
candidate cannot challenge the selection on the ground that marks have
been given to him/her in the interview by adopting unfair process. Relevant
paragraphs of the judgment are as under:-
9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in
view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the
contesting successful candidates being
concerned respondents herein, were all found eligible in
the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be
eligible to be called for oral interview. Upto this stage
there is no dis- pute between the parties. The petitioners
also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the
concerned Members of the Commission who interviewed
the petitioners as well as the concerned contesting
respondents. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get
themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only
because they did not find themselves to have emerged
successful as a result of their combined performance both
at written test and oral interview, that they have filed this
petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a
calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only
because the result of the interview is not palatable to him
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010281
CM-465-CWP-2024 in/& -4- 2024:PHHC:010281
CWP-26875-2018
he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the
process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee
was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash
Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors., (AIR 1986
SC 1043), it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of
three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner
appeared at the examination without protest and when he
found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a
petition challenging the said examination, the High Court
should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.
10. Therefore, 'the result of the interview test on merits
cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who
takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and
who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also
to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a
Court of appeal and try to reassess the relevant merits of
the concerned candidates who had been assessed at the
oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge
before us that they were given less marks though their
performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee
which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court
Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who
were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid
down by the relevant rules governing such interviews.
Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an
expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on
the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified
as that would be the function of an appellate body and we
are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the
assessment made by such an expert committee."
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010281
CM-465-CWP-2024 in/& -5- 2024:PHHC:010281
CWP-26875-2018
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances recorded
hereinbefore, coupled with the settled principle of law, no ground for
interference is made out by this Court and the present writ petition is
accordingly dismissed.
January 25, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010281
5 of 5
