Vikram Singh and Anr. v. Subordinate Services Selection Bard, Haryanaand Ors.
In short. The case involves Vikram Singh and another petitioner challenging the decision of the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, regarding the selection process for Excise Inspectors. The core issue was the legality of the viva voce test's weightage, which constituted 28.5% of the total marks, deemed arbitrary by the petitioners. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, asserting that the principles established in the precedent case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana applied to their situation. The Court ordered the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Excise Inspectors, provided they were otherwise suitable, and clarified that any overage status would not disqualify them.
Facts
The Haryana Excise and Taxation Inspectorate (State Service, Class III) Rules, 1969, set the framework for the selection of Excise Inspectors, allocating 250 marks for a written test and 100 marks for a viva voce. In 1985, the petitioners successfully passed the written examination and were interviewed in March 1986. However, the Selection Board awarded viva voce marks based on a percentage that was later contested by the petitioners, who argued that the allocation of 100 marks for the viva voce was arbitrary and contrary to established legal principles. The Board decided to reinterview candidates, which the petitioners challenged as unconstitutional. The High Court upheld the Board's decision, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Arguments
Petitioner Arguments
The petitioners argued that the allocation of 100 marks for the viva voce test was excessive and arbitrary, constituting 28.5% of the total marks, which they claimed was contrary to the legal standards set in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case. They contended that the selection process was flawed and that the High Court's ruling was incorrect. The Supreme Court addressed these arguments by affirming that the principles from the Ashok Kumar Yadav case were applicable and that the initial selection process was valid.
Respondent Arguments
The respondents defended the selection process, asserting that the viva voce marks were awarded in accordance with the rules and that the decision to reinterview candidates was a corrective measure. They argued that the High Court's ruling was justified and that the selection process adhered to the established legal framework. The Supreme Court, however, found the respondents' arguments insufficient, particularly regarding the legality of the second interview and the arbitrary nature of the marks allocation.
Precedents considered
The judgment heavily referenced the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, which established principles regarding the weightage of viva voce marks in selection processes. The Court emphasized that the principles from this precedent were applicable to the current case, thereby invalidating the respondents' approach to the viva voce test. The case of Leeladhar v. State of Rajasthan was distinguished, indicating that it did not apply to the circumstances of this case.
Legal principles
The Court considered the legal principle that the allocation of marks in a selection process must be reasonable and not arbitrary. The weightage of viva voce marks was scrutinized under this principle, leading to the conclusion that a 28.5% allocation was excessive and unjustifiable. The Court also noted that candidates' age should not disqualify them from appointment if they were otherwise suitable.
Decision and reasoning
Rationale
The Court reasoned that the initial selection process, which adhered to the correct principles, should stand, and that the subsequent reinterview process was flawed. It highlighted the importance of maintaining fairness and transparency in selection processes, particularly in public service appointments. The Court criticized the arbitrary nature of the viva voce weightage and emphasized the need for adherence to established legal standards.
Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Excise Inspectors within one month, provided they were found suitable. The Court also stated that any overage status of the petitioners would not disqualify them from appointment.
Conclusion
This judgment reinforces the importance of fair selection processes in public service and the necessity for adherence to established legal principles regarding the allocation of marks. It highlights the Court's role in ensuring that arbitrary practices are challenged and corrected, thereby promoting transparency and fairness in governmental appointments.
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)
Find the judgments that followed or distinguished it, with the paragraph relied on in each. Two answers free on WhatsApp, no signup.