- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bhanu Pratap v. State Of Haryana And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Haryana Public Service Commission (“the Commission”) advertised 73 vacancies for Subordinate Judges (HCS-Judicial Branch) in 2003. The appellant sat for the examination, secured the requisite 50 % in the written papers, and was one of only three candidates called for the viva-voce, which carried 120 marks. He obtained 20 marks in the interview, bringing his overall score to 49.8 %—just below the 50 % aggregate mandated by Rules 7 and 8 of the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951.
Because he did not reach the qualifying aggregate, the Commission did not recommend him for appointment. The appellant challenged the decision in CWP No. 12205 of 2005 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to round his marks up to 50 %. A learned Single Judge dismissed the petition; a Division Bench upheld that dismissal. The present civil appeal before the Supreme Court followed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the marks of a candidate who secures 49.8 % in aggregate (written plus viva-voce) can be rounded off to 50 % to satisfy Rule 8(1) of the 1951 Rules.
- Whether the expansion of grading factors in the viva-voce (from three to six) rendered the selection process arbitrary.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The marginal shortfall of 0.2 % should be rounded up to 50 %, qualifying him for appointment under a principle of rounding where the deficit is one-half mark or less.
- The Commission altered the viva-voce evaluation by increasing grading categories from three to six, thereby widening discretion and introducing arbitrariness.
Respondents' Arguments
- The 1951 Rules are statutory and require a minimum of 50 % aggregate; they contain no power to award grace marks or round off scores.
- The Commission strictly followed the prescribed Rules and the parameters circulated in advance; therefore the selection process was neither arbitrary nor illegal.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655 | Appointments made in disregard of advertised qualifications prejudice potential applicants who met the stated criteria. | Used to underline that altering or relaxing stated eligibility (by rounding off) would disadvantage candidates who did not apply or qualify under the published Rules. |
| Umrao Singh v. Punjabi University (2005) 13 SCC 365 | Relaxation of essential qualifications is impermissible unless the power to relax is expressly conferred. | Reinforced that neither the Selection Committee nor the Court can relax the 50 % requirement in the absence of an explicit Rule. |
| P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 141 | The power to relax qualifications must be clearly spelled out; otherwise, selections in contravention stand vitiated. | Cited within Umrao Singh to support the larger proposition that unwritten relaxations are unlawful. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined Rules 7 and 8 of the 1951 Rules and noted their mandatory language requiring “at least” 33 % in every written paper and 50 % in aggregate (including viva-voce). Because the Rules are statutory, neither the Commission nor the Court may dilute them by rounding off or granting grace marks.
The Court rejected the appellant’s plea for rounding off, finding no statutory or advertised provision authorising such practice. Allowing rounding off, it reasoned, would undermine the integrity of the threshold and open the door to similar claims from candidates falling marginally short of other minima (e.g., 33 % in a single paper), thereby frustrating the scheme of the Rules.
On the allegation of arbitrariness in expanding viva-voce grading criteria, the Court held that the Division of 120 marks into six categories had been pre-circulated as a guideline and applied uniformly. The appellant in fact received the maximum marks available within the “Poor” range (5 marks in each of four heads), demonstrating adherence rather than arbitrariness.
Reliance was placed on prior Supreme Court decisions emphasising strict compliance with advertised qualifications and denying unexpressed powers of relaxation. Consequently, the appellant’s claims were unfounded both in law and on facts.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED.
The appellant is not entitled to appointment as Subordinate Judge. The judgment reaffirms that minimum qualifying marks fixed by statutory rules cannot be relaxed or rounded off absent explicit authority. While the decision reiterates existing principles, it establishes no new precedent beyond reinforcing strict adherence to recruitment rules.
Dr M.K Sharma, J.— Leave granted. In this appeal we are called upon to decide an issue pertaining to an appointment to the post of a Subordinate Judge under the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Examination which was advertised in 2003 and for which the selection process was completed in 2004. Thereafter, two candidates, who alone were selected have been appointed and joined their services on 18-3-2005 and 7-7-2005, respectively.
2. Even subsequent thereto advertisements have been issued for filling up similar vacancies in 2008 and 2010 which process was also long completed and persons selected have also been appointed pursuant to the said selection process. We are also informed that in 2011, further 111 posts have been advertised for which selection process has been initiated.
3. The appellant herein submitted his application as against the aforesaid advertisement issued by the respondents in 2003 for filling up 73 posts of the Subordinate Judges under the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Examination. The appellant appeared in the written tests and was declared successful and thereafter he was called for interview. Incidentally out of 3471 candidates who appeared for the written examination, only 3 persons obtained more than 50% marks in the written examination and were eligible under the extant Rules for being called for interview/viva voce. All the 3 candidates called for interview duly appeared before the Interview Board constituted by the Haryana Public Service Commission (for short “the Commission”) in which one of the then Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was called as an Expert Advisor who was present during the process of the interview.
4. It transpires from the records that in the interview conducted by the Commission total marks allocated for the interview/viva voce test were 120 and one Shri Vivek Nasir obtained 72 marks out of 120, whereas, Shri Anubhav Sharma was awarded 60 marks out of 120. However, the present appellant could get only 20 marks out of the total marks of 120 for the interview. Since he failed to qualify in terms of Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 (for short “the Rules”) he was not appointed to the said post.
5. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh which was registered as CWP No. 12205 of 2005 in which he sought for a writ of mandamus directing his appointment to the post of judicial officer. In the writ petition his contention was that since he received total aggregate marks of 508 out of 1020 total marks i.e 49.8% and since the marks obtained by him were short of 50% by just two marks the same should be rounded off to the qualifying marks of 50% in aggregate in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules. It was contended that shortage of the percentage of half or less was to be rounded off and when the petitioner had obtained 49.8% in the whole aggregate after viva voce test, he should have been treated to have obtained 50% and should have been deemed to have qualified.
6. The aforesaid contention of the appellant, however, was rejected by the Single Judge of the High Court and the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed, which order was further upheld by the Division Bench on appeal. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition and letters patent appeal, the appellant filed the present appeal in this Court, on which we heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties who had also taken us through the entire records.
7. Appointment to the post of the Subordinate Judge (HCS Judicial Branch) is guided by the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 which are statutory in nature. Rules 7(1), 7(2) and 8(1) specifically deal with the minimum marks that a candidate has to obtain to qualify in the written test and also for selection. The said provisions are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:
“7. (1) No candidate shall be credited with any marks in any paper unless he obtains at least thirty-three per cent marks in it.
(2) No candidate shall be called for the viva voce test unless he obtains at least fifty per cent qualifying marks in the aggregate of all the written papers and thirty-three per cent marks in the language paper, Hindi in (Devnagari script).
***
8. (1) No candidate shall be considered to have qualified in the examination unless he obtains at least 50% marks in the aggregate of all papers including viva voce test.”
8. In the advertisement issued by the respondents for filling up the said post along with the instructions and information for the candidates it was specifically mentioned that the syllabus of the examination would be as contained in the Schedule under Rule 9 of Para ‘C’ of the Rules relating to the appointment of the Subordinate Judges in Haryana. The said syllabus was set out in detail showing the compulsory papers, description of subjects, maximum marks for each subject. It was also communicated that for viva voce test there will be 120 marks. The rules with regard to the conduct of the written examination were also set out therein. In Clause (g)(i) thereof it was indicated that no candidate shall be considered to have qualified in the examination unless he obtains at least 50% marks in the aggregate of all papers including the viva voce test.
9. It was also stated thereafter in the advertisement that the merit of the qualified candidates shall be determined by the Haryana Public Service Commission strictly according to the aggregate marks obtained in the written papers and viva voce. For the viva voce test it was provided in the advertisement that it will be a test relating to the matters of general interest and is intended to test the candidate's alertness, intelligence and general outlook. It was reiterated thereunder also that the merit of the qualified candidates would be determined by the Haryana Public Service Commission strictly according to the aggregate marks obtained in the written papers and viva voce.
10. As stated hereinbefore, a sitting Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was associated as an Expert Advisor at the time of viva voce test which consisted of 120 marks. The total 120 marks of viva voce test were divided under four heads evaluating the personal quality of the candidates as follows:
“(a) Awareness, outlook, subject knowledge and general interest 30 marks (b) Articulation and expression 30 marks (c) Intelligence and alertness 30 marks (d) Poise, bearing and other qualities 30 marks”
The Judge of the High Court was to classify a candidate as Expert Advisor under the following categories:
“Class Marks range Excellent (E) 26-30 V. Good (G+) 21-25 Good (G) 16-20 Above average (A+) 11-15 Average (A) 06-10 Poor (P) 01-05”
11. It is brought out on records that the Judge present in the interview graded Anubhav Sharma as ‘G’ i.e “Good” placing him within the mark range of 16-20, whereas Bhanu Pratap was graded as ‘P’ i.e “Poor” placing him within the mark range of 01-05 and Vivek Nasir was graded as ‘A+’ i.e “Above average” placing him within the mark range of 11-15.
12. The aforesaid grading criteria to be awarded by the Judge for evaluating the personal quality of the candidates were circulated to the members of the Selection Committee for viva voce examination as a guideline before the viva voce examination. Therefore, the minimum marks which could be given to the appellant in each of the heads, was only one and in this case, the Chairman, and the members of the Commission had given him the maximum marks i.e 5 marks, under each of abovementioned four heads and consequently he got 20 marks out of 120 ascribed to the viva voce examination.
13. The counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before us that since the appellant had received 49.8% in aggregate in all the tests including viva voce, the same could and should have been rounded off to 50% in aggregate which would have entitled the appellant to be selected for appointment to the aforesaid post. The counsel also submitted that during the earlier selection immediately preceding the selection in question there was the requirement of grading under three factors/categories only and the same came to be varied/increased in the selection in question from three to six. He contended that this increasing of grading factors/categories from three to six envisages much wider criteria in the selection process in question which amounted to arbitrariness.
14. The aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for the appellant were however refuted by the counsel appearing for the respondents by submitting that the respondents have strictly and minutely followed and complied with the Rules which are statutory in nature and, therefore, the present appeal has no merit at all. He also submitted that there cannot be addition of any marks unless the same is specifically permitted and provided either under the Rules or in the advertisement and, therefore, there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the selection in question.
15. In the light of the records placed before us we have considered the aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties. The relevant Rules have already been extracted above. A bare reading of the aforesaid Rules would make it crystal clear that in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate has to obtain at least 33% marks in each of the papers and at least 50% qualifying marks in the aggregate in all the written papers.
16. The further mandate of the Rules is that a candidate would not be considered as qualified in the examination unless he obtains at least 50% marks in the aggregate including the viva voce test. When emphasis is given in the Rules itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be obtained by the candidate concerned there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off as sought to be submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant.
17. There is no power provided in the statute nor was any such stipulation made in the advertisement and also in the statutory Rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement. In our considered opinion, no such rounding off or relaxation was permissible. The Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory Rules for providing or giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation.
18. We may also draw support in this connection from a decision of this Court in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655, (1990) 14 ATC 766. In the said judgment this Court has laid down that:
“6. … when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, [then] it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement.”
19. In Umrao Singh v. Punjabi University (2005) 13 SCC 365 this Court while dealing with the power of Selection Committee for relaxation of norms held thus:
“12. Another aspect which this Court has highlighted is the scope for relaxation of norms. Although the Court must look with respect upon the performance of duties by experts in the respective fields, it cannot abdicate its functions of ushering in a society based on rule of law. Once it is most satisfactorily established that the Selection Committee did not have the power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection so far as the selected candidate is concerned gets vitiated. In P.K Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 141, (1984) 1 LLJ 314 this Court held that once it is established that there is no power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection of the candidate was in contravention of the established norms prescribed by advertisement. The power to relax must be clearly spelt out and cannot otherwise be exercised.”
20. Let us also examine the issue from another angle. If rounding off is given to the appellant as sought for by him there has to be similar rounding off for a person who has missed 33% in one of the papers just by a whisker. To him and to such a person who could not get 50% in aggregate in the written test, if this rule of rounding off is offered then they would also get qualified. In that event, there would be no meaning of having a rule wherein it is provided that a person must at least have the minimum marks as provided for thereunder. Somewhere a line has to be drawn and that line has to be strictly observed which is like a Lakshman Rekha and no variation of the same is possible unless it is so provided under the Rules itself. Both the Selection Committee as also the appointing authority are bound to act within the parameters of the Rules which are statutory in nature and any violation or any relaxation thereof whether by way of giving grace marks or rounding off would be acting beyond the parameters prescribed which would be illegal.
21. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed but leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Alert