1985 (5) TMI 243 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Integrity and Qualifications of Haryana Public Service Commission Members.
2. Alleged Bias Due to Members' Relatives Participating in Selection.
3. Number of Candidates Called for Interview.
4. Allocation of Marks for Viva Voce Test.
5. Validity of Selections Made by Haryana Public Service Commission.

Summary:

1. Integrity and Qualifications of Haryana Public Service Commission Members:
The petitioners challenged the integrity and qualifications of the Chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service Commission, alleging they were appointed based on political patronage and caste considerations. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the Division Bench of the High Court made disparaging observations without factual basis and without the Chairman and some members being party respondents to the writ petitions, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that even if the appointments were influenced by political and caste considerations, it did not necessarily mean the appointees lacked integrity, calibre, or qualification. The Court concluded that the appointments were in conformity with constitutional and legal requirements and could not be invalidated on these grounds.

2. Alleged Bias Due to Members' Relatives Participating in Selection:
The petitioners argued that the selection process was tainted because two members of the Haryana Public Service Commission had close relatives who were candidates. The Supreme Court found no evidence of bias or nepotism, noting that the concerned members did not participate in the interviews of their relatives. The Court held that the mere relationship did not automatically imply bias, and there was no material to suggest that the high marks awarded to the relatives were undeserved.

3. Number of Candidates Called for Interview:
The petitioners contended that calling over 1300 candidates for interview, when only 119 posts were available, was excessive and widened the scope for arbitrariness. The Supreme Court agreed that the Haryana Public Service Commission should not have called such a large number of candidates for interview. However, the Court found that this practice, though not ideal, did not by itself invalidate the selections made, as there was no evidence of mala fide intent.

4. Allocation of Marks for Viva Voce Test:
The petitioners argued that the allocation of 200 marks for the viva voce test, constituting 33.3% of total marks for ex-service officers and 22.2% for other candidates, was excessive and introduced arbitrariness. The Supreme Court agreed that the percentage was unduly high and could lead to arbitrariness. The Court directed that in future selections, the marks for the viva voce test should not exceed 12.2% for general candidates and 25% for ex-service officers, aligning with the standards followed by the Union Public Service Commission.

5. Validity of Selections Made by Haryana Public Service Commission:
Despite finding the allocation of marks for the viva voce test excessive, the Supreme Court decided not to set aside the selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission, considering the lapse of almost two years and the potential disruption to the administrative machinery. The Court directed that candidates who secured a minimum of 45% marks in the written examination but were not selected should be given another opportunity to appear in the competitive examination under the revised principles.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and upheld the validity of the selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission. The Court directed that future selections should adhere to the revised allocation of marks for the viva voce test and provided an additional opportunity for certain candidates to reappear in the competitive examination. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.