Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-2208-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 2698 (28 April 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

C.W.P. No. 2208 of 2005

Date of Decision: 08.05.2006

Vinod Kumar



State of Haryana and others



Present: Mr. Jayoti Parshad Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana,

for respondent No. 1 to 3.

Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate,

for respondent Nos. 4 and 6 to 12.


M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)

This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2208 of 2005, 19928 of 2005 and 436 of 2005 as the common questions of facts and law are involved. For the sake of convenience, facts are being referred from C.W.P. No. 2208 of 2005.

The petitioner has challenged the selection and appointment of private respondents on the post of Physical Training Instructor (for brevity, `PTI') as per the result declared by the Haryana Subordinate Staff Selection Commission respondent No. 3 (for brevity, `the Commission'). It is appropriate to mention that the Commission on the requisition received from respondent No. 1, had issued an advertisement No. 7/2003 on 18.10.2003 (P-14), inviting applications for 382 posts of PTI in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 (Category 3). Further break up is given in the advertisement and 165 C.W.P. No. 2208 of 2005

posts have been allocated to the General Category apart from the reservation made in favour of Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes, Ex-Servicemen and Outstanding Sportsperson. The essential qualifications prescribed in the advertisement are Martic from the Haryana School Education Board or an equivalent qualification; Certificate in Physical Education conducted by the Haryana Education Department or an equivalent qualification recognised by the Haryana Education Department; and knowledge of Hindi upto Matric standard.

The petitioner has attacked the selection on the basis of two arguments, namely, that the private respondents did not fulfil the educational qualification as they were merely Marticulate whereas for qualifying the Certificate in Physical Education minimum educational qualification is 10+2 pass and no person without having passed 10+2 examination, can take admission in the Certificate Course in Physical Education, after the Sessions 2001. The other argument is that the criteria as disclosed in the advertisement provide 30 marks for the Viva Voce test whereas 60 marks have been allocated to the academic qualification. It has been submitted that prescription of 50% marks as compared to 100 marks for academic qualification is arbitrary and violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.

Learned State counsel, however, has argued that there is no bar for those who have qualified the Certificate Course in Physical Education before 2001 when the qualification for admission to the aforementioned Course was Matriculate. He has further argued that the advertisement did not make any distinction between those who have qualified the said Course before 2001 or in 2001 or thereafter when the rule with regard to admission was changed and only 10+2 pass candidates were permitted to take admission in the Certificate Course of Physical Education. He has further submitted that in General Category 165 candidates were selected and only few of them have been impleaded as respondents, therefore, it is submitted that the requirement of law is that all the selected candidates have to be impleaded as respondents in the instant petition. It has further been C.W.P. No. 2208 of 2005

pointed out that the petitioner having participated in the selection, cannot turn out and say that the selection suffers for want of a valid criteria adopted by the respondents and the principle of estoppel would apply as well as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal and others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1995 (2) SCT 880.

We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed for more than one reason.

The advertisement has not placed any embargo on the eligibility of those who have qualified the Certificate Course in Physical Education after qualifying Matric. The change in rule in the year 2001, for admission to the aforementioned course confining admission to only 10+2 pass candidates, cannot constitute a basis for setting aside the selection as the petitioner, who had passed 10+2 examination and thereafter qualified the Certificate Course in Physical Education, has also been made eligible. The Certificate Course passed by the private respondents has been duly recognised. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the first submission of the learned counsel. The other submission that 50% marks have been allocated to the Viva Voce test can also not be accepted because firstly it would depend on the selection body, the age of the candidate and the requirement of the job, which would determine the criteria to be adopted by the selection bodies. The determination of 50% marks for Viva Voce cannot be held to be arbitrary. By a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it has now been laid down that merely because 50% marks have been kept for Viva Voce, would not constitute a basis for quashing a selection. In the case of Ajay Hasia and others v.

Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, 1981 (2) SCT 79, various principles have been culled out, which go into the consideration of framing a criteria by the selection bodies. In Anzar Ahmad v. State of Bihar & others, 1994 (1) SCT 483, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of upholding the selections, which have been made on the basis of 100% marks for Viva Voce. However, in that C.W.P. No. 2208 of 2005

case selection was made by allocating 50% marks for academic qualification and 50% for interview and the selection was upheld.

Therefore, there is no substance even in the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has participated in the selection and having failed he would be estopped by the principle of estoppel to challenge the selection of the private respondents as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal's case (supra). Still further we find that the instant petition must fail because the petitioner has not impleaded all the selected candidates as party respondents, which is necessary in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Tewari and others v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and others, 1998 (1) SLR 219. We have also been apprised about the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 15097 of 2004, titled as Rani Devi and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 20.9.2005, upholding the same selection.

Therefore, there is no room to interfere in the selection of the private respondents.

For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.




May 8, 2006 JUDGE


1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?


2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?


3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?


C.W.P. No. 2208 of 2005 5


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.