IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 14384 of 2009
Date of decision 26 .4.2010
Km.Shashindra Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. JL Malhotra,Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate with
Mr. HS Deol, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4
1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
M.M.KUMAR, J.
The petitioner has challenged order dated 3.8.2009 (P.12) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in OA No. 5057/HR/2009. The Tribunal had rejected her claim by concluding that she had secured 22 marks out of 50 marks
allocated for interview which were the lowest. Her total marks were 52 out of 100. The Tribunal has opined that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the selection process after having participated and failed. The doctrine in the nature of estoppel would come in play.
The respondents had invited applications for filling up the posts of Assistant Director by direct recruitment. The essential qualifications advertised were (i) degree in Electrical or Mechanical or Electronics Intrumentation Engineering and (ii) Two years experience at power sector and desirable qualification as (a) aptitude for training and (b) knowledge of computer and Simulator would be preferred. The petitioner applied but was not selected. She challenged the selection of others on the basis that she was the only female candidate holding essential qualifications and desirable qualifications. She claimed that due weighage to desirability qualification should have been given. The Tribunal dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal she has filed the instant petition.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and are of the view that there is no merit in the instant petition. Firstly, the criterion of allocating 50% marks for viva voce does not suffer from any illegality as has been projected by the counsel for the petitioner. The marks for viva voce cannot be regarded excessive because there was no written test. It is only in the case of written test that undue weighage given to the marks allocated for viva voce could be regarded as excessive. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Anzar Ahmed v. State of Bihar 1993(5) SLR 798. In that case also 50 % marks were allocated to viva voce and 50% to the academic performance. Upholding the selection criterion Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that the principles which govern the allocation of marks for interview in a selection based on written and vivavoce test would not apply to the selection where no written test is held and the selection is based on interview only. The other argument is that the petitioner should have been preferred as she was the only candidate with desirable qualifications. Again, we do not find any substance in the aforesaid argument because preference could have been given to her had she secured adequate marks on the basis of essential educational qualifications and viva voce test.
Moreover, after participation in the selection process she cannot be permitted to challenge the selection of others. In that regard, reliance may be placed on the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of Madan Lal v. State of J&K (1995) 3 SCC 486.
For the reasons afore-mentioned this petition fails and the same is dismissed.
(M.M.Kumar)
Judge
(Jitendra Chauhan)
Judge
26.4.2010
CWP No. 14384 of 2009
Date of decision 26 .4.2010
Km.Shashindra Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. JL Malhotra,Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate with
Mr. HS Deol, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4
1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
M.M.KUMAR, J.
The petitioner has challenged order dated 3.8.2009 (P.12) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in OA No. 5057/HR/2009. The Tribunal had rejected her claim by concluding that she had secured 22 marks out of 50 marks
allocated for interview which were the lowest. Her total marks were 52 out of 100. The Tribunal has opined that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the selection process after having participated and failed. The doctrine in the nature of estoppel would come in play.
The respondents had invited applications for filling up the posts of Assistant Director by direct recruitment. The essential qualifications advertised were (i) degree in Electrical or Mechanical or Electronics Intrumentation Engineering and (ii) Two years experience at power sector and desirable qualification as (a) aptitude for training and (b) knowledge of computer and Simulator would be preferred. The petitioner applied but was not selected. She challenged the selection of others on the basis that she was the only female candidate holding essential qualifications and desirable qualifications. She claimed that due weighage to desirability qualification should have been given. The Tribunal dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal she has filed the instant petition.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and are of the view that there is no merit in the instant petition. Firstly, the criterion of allocating 50% marks for viva voce does not suffer from any illegality as has been projected by the counsel for the petitioner. The marks for viva voce cannot be regarded excessive because there was no written test. It is only in the case of written test that undue weighage given to the marks allocated for viva voce could be regarded as excessive. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Anzar Ahmed v. State of Bihar 1993(5) SLR 798. In that case also 50 % marks were allocated to viva voce and 50% to the academic performance. Upholding the selection criterion Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that the principles which govern the allocation of marks for interview in a selection based on written and vivavoce test would not apply to the selection where no written test is held and the selection is based on interview only. The other argument is that the petitioner should have been preferred as she was the only candidate with desirable qualifications. Again, we do not find any substance in the aforesaid argument because preference could have been given to her had she secured adequate marks on the basis of essential educational qualifications and viva voce test.
Moreover, after participation in the selection process she cannot be permitted to challenge the selection of others. In that regard, reliance may be placed on the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of Madan Lal v. State of J&K (1995) 3 SCC 486.
For the reasons afore-mentioned this petition fails and the same is dismissed.
(M.M.Kumar)
Judge
(Jitendra Chauhan)
Judge
26.4.2010
No comments:
Post a Comment