Times of India: Chandigarh: Tuesday, 17 August 2021.
The Supreme Court has decided to examine “discrimination and arbitrariness” in the 2006 selection process for the posts of deputy superintendent in the Haryana prisons department taking cognizance of an appeal filed by Kapil Hooda, of Rohtak district in Haryana, who had challenged the decision of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) on appointments to the post of deputy superintendent.
In 2006, the HSSC had invited applications for three posts of deputy superintendent, jail. The qualifications prescribed for the post were a bachelor’s degree from a recognised university in arts or science. The advertisement also stated that preference would be given to candidates holding a degree or diploma in criminology. The petitioner had a bachelor’s degree in arts from Panjab University and a postgraduate degree in criminology from Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science. Out of total three posts, two were for the general category. Hooda, who belongs to the general category, had also appeared in the selection process for which he was ultimately not selected.
A Supreme Court division bench, comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V Ramasubramanian, passed these orders and issued notices to the HSSC, the Haryana government and candidates selected for this post in 2006, seeking their reply on Hooda’s plea.
Well qualified candidate given disproportionately low marks: SC
In this case, the purported performance of candidates at the interview tilted the impugned selection in favour of a candidate who was awarded 23.25 out of 25 in the viva voce, even though he secured 20.90 marks for his educational qualifications, acquired as an external candidate through correspondence course. The preponderance of possibilities points towards discrimination. By a letter dated May 28, 2008, the petitioner was informed that the information he had sought vide his letter dated May 6, 2006, regarding physical measurement results could not be supplied as the records of physical measurement had been destroyed. The petitioner claims that the selected candidates did not fulfill the criteria of a minimum height of 5’7”. It, prima facie, appears that there has been arbitrariness in the selection process. Our conscience does not permit us to shut our eyes to a prima facie opaque, unjust, arbitrary and discriminatory selection,” the bench observed. The case would come up for hearing in September.
In its detailed order, the Supreme Court bench also observed, “While it may be true, that in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the courts do not sit in appeal over decisions taken by a staff selection commission, or embark upon a comparative assessment of different candidates, to determine who is the best, what troubles the conscience of this court is whether this court should simply sit back and fold its hands when the selection prima facie appears to be arbitrary, with no written test, but only a so-called viva voce, without any disclosed intelligible criteria, when candidates called for an interview are awarded marks whimsically... and a candidate otherwise well qualified is given disproportionately low marks in the interview compared to less qualified candidates who graduated through the correspondence course”.
Hooda had approached Punjab and Haryana high court in 2007, challenging his non-selection primarily on the ground that due weightage was not given to the preferential qualification of post-graduation in criminology. Arguing his case before the HC, the petitioner had said that the selected candidates did not possess the preferential qualification. Information obtained under the RTI Act, the petitioner contended, showed that they had scored 43.90 marks and 43.10 marks, respectively, whereas the petitioner had scored 40.29 marks. He had contended that if due weightage had been given to the preferential qualification, he would have scored more marks than the selected candidates. However, his plea was dismissed by the HC in December 2020.
The Supreme Court has decided to examine “discrimination and arbitrariness” in the 2006 selection process for the posts of deputy superintendent in the Haryana prisons department taking cognizance of an appeal filed by Kapil Hooda, of Rohtak district in Haryana, who had challenged the decision of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) on appointments to the post of deputy superintendent.
In 2006, the HSSC had invited applications for three posts of deputy superintendent, jail. The qualifications prescribed for the post were a bachelor’s degree from a recognised university in arts or science. The advertisement also stated that preference would be given to candidates holding a degree or diploma in criminology. The petitioner had a bachelor’s degree in arts from Panjab University and a postgraduate degree in criminology from Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science. Out of total three posts, two were for the general category. Hooda, who belongs to the general category, had also appeared in the selection process for which he was ultimately not selected.
A Supreme Court division bench, comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V Ramasubramanian, passed these orders and issued notices to the HSSC, the Haryana government and candidates selected for this post in 2006, seeking their reply on Hooda’s plea.
Well qualified candidate given disproportionately low marks: SC
In this case, the purported performance of candidates at the interview tilted the impugned selection in favour of a candidate who was awarded 23.25 out of 25 in the viva voce, even though he secured 20.90 marks for his educational qualifications, acquired as an external candidate through correspondence course. The preponderance of possibilities points towards discrimination. By a letter dated May 28, 2008, the petitioner was informed that the information he had sought vide his letter dated May 6, 2006, regarding physical measurement results could not be supplied as the records of physical measurement had been destroyed. The petitioner claims that the selected candidates did not fulfill the criteria of a minimum height of 5’7”. It, prima facie, appears that there has been arbitrariness in the selection process. Our conscience does not permit us to shut our eyes to a prima facie opaque, unjust, arbitrary and discriminatory selection,” the bench observed. The case would come up for hearing in September.
In its detailed order, the Supreme Court bench also observed, “While it may be true, that in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the courts do not sit in appeal over decisions taken by a staff selection commission, or embark upon a comparative assessment of different candidates, to determine who is the best, what troubles the conscience of this court is whether this court should simply sit back and fold its hands when the selection prima facie appears to be arbitrary, with no written test, but only a so-called viva voce, without any disclosed intelligible criteria, when candidates called for an interview are awarded marks whimsically... and a candidate otherwise well qualified is given disproportionately low marks in the interview compared to less qualified candidates who graduated through the correspondence course”.
Hooda had approached Punjab and Haryana high court in 2007, challenging his non-selection primarily on the ground that due weightage was not given to the preferential qualification of post-graduation in criminology. Arguing his case before the HC, the petitioner had said that the selected candidates did not possess the preferential qualification. Information obtained under the RTI Act, the petitioner contended, showed that they had scored 43.90 marks and 43.10 marks, respectively, whereas the petitioner had scored 40.29 marks. He had contended that if due weightage had been given to the preferential qualification, he would have scored more marks than the selected candidates. However, his plea was dismissed by the HC in December 2020.
.JPG)
.JPG)
