Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the selection process for 54 posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors in Punjab, where the Selection Committee called over 1200 candidates for interviews. The appellants, who were unsuccessful in the selection, challenged the process in the High Court, which dismissed their petitions based on previous judgments. The appellants contended that calling such a large number of candidates for a limited number of posts led to an arbitrary selection process, particularly criticizing the 25% weightage given to the viva voce test. The respondents argued that the selection was valid as all eligible candidates were called, and the marks were awarded by experts. The Supreme Court acknowledged the excessive weightage for the viva voce test but noted that quashing the selection would be unjust to those already appointed. The court directed the appointment of three appellants if found suitable, regardless of age disqualification. The decision highlighted the need for a balanced approach in selection processes while maintaining fairness and transparency.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 Violation - Arbitrary Selection Process - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 - The court found that the allocation of 25% marks for the viva voce test was excessive and arbitrary, violating the principles of fair selection. The court emphasized that a reasonable percentage for viva voce should not exceed 15% in such selections. Held that the selection process was flawed but did not warrant quashing due to the already appointed candidates (Paras 133-134).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the selection process for Excise and Taxation Inspectors was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions and one appeal, while allowing the other appeals. It held that the allocation of 25% marks for the viva voce test was excessive but did not quash the selections due to the injustice it would cause to already appointed candidates. The court directed the appointment of three appellants if suitable, disregarding age disqualification.
Law Points
- Selection process
- viva voce test
- arbitrary marks allocation
- Article 14 violation
- appointment criteria
