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

Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Rameshwar Dass Mehta v. Om Prakash Saini and Others, 2002
(2) RSJ, 194, it was argued that when a person had secured 54.85% marks then it should have been
treated to be as good as 55%, which was required in a case for the post of a Librarian.
As per reply of the Haryana Public Service Commission, a Judge is associated at the time of viva
voce test, who gives grading on the basis of performance of a candidate in the viva voce test and on
the basis of that grading, the marks are awarded by the Selection Committee of the Haryana Public
Service Commission.
Counsel for Haryana State and HPSC had relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported
in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and others v. B.S.Mahajan and others, 1990(1) RSJ,261 and argued
that it is not function of the Court to hear appeals over decision of the Selection Committee and
scrutinize marks of the candidates. From another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in
Madan Lal and Others v. State of J&K and Others, 1995(3) RSJ, 344, it was argued that if a
candidate had been given less marks in oral interview as compared to the rival candidates, it could not
be said that there was any ulterior motive for the selection committee. It was argued that a candidate
shall be considered to have qualified in the examination only when he obtained at least 50% in aggregate
in all papers including viva voce test and in this case petitioner obtained less than 50% and therefore he
was not qualified to be appointed. From the Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in Kuldip
Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, 1997(5) SLR, 133, it was argued that there was no provision of
rounding off fraction of marks obtained in the written examination for bringing a candidate into the field
of choice for selection to a post, which was not warranted by law. From the another Division Bench
Judgment of this Court reported in Dr. Surinder Kumar v. Kurukshetra University, 2000 (1) SLR, 35,
it was argued that when the minimum qualification prescribed was 55% then the petitioner, who was
securing 54.94% marks, could not be given benefit of rounding off to 55% and could not be brought
to the zone of eligibility. From all this, it was argued by counsel for the respondent that the petitioner
has no case.
Haryana PSC
Since only three candidates had qualified for interview when there were as many as 60 posts
advertised and present petitioner had got 54.3% marks in the written examination against the requirement
of 50%, the record of HPSC regarding the interview and marks given in the interview was called.
From the perusal of that record, it will come out that Expert Advisor, Chairman and Members had no
knowledge about marks obtained in written examination.
273