Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

270
to his credit but no preference was given to the petitioner for his experience.
Reply on behalf of the Haryana Public Service Commission has been filed, wherein, it has been
averred that 30 candidates were interviewed by each Selection Committee of Haryana Public Service
Commission and were interviewed for a sufficiently long time and in a proper manner. The allegation
of the petitioner that the interview was a farce and an eye-wash has been denied.
Shri R.K.Malik, counsel for the private respondents No.4 to 24, who were selected as Assistant
Environmental Engineer (Group-B) contends that only preference was to be given to the candidates
who had experience to their credit. He submitted that the word “preference” has been interpreted by
this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1996 (4) S.L.R. 661 Prem Singh and others
Versus Haryana State Electricity Board and others wherein it has been held that where two candidates
are equal in merit then preference is to be given to a candidate who possesses any of the preferential
qualification. It is contended that in the present case the marks obtained by the petitioner were much
less than respondent No.4, hence, no preference was given to the petitioner.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that as the petitioner
has secured less marks, hence, he was not entitled to be given any preference. We also found that
there was no illegality in the interview and the selection process carried out by the Haryana Public
Service Commission.
Haryana PSC
In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
***