Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a batch of appeals arising from a common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which quashed the selection of Physical Training Instructors (PTIs) by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) pursuant to Advertisement No.6 of 2006. The HSSC had initially advertised 1,983 posts of PTI and received 20,836 applications. A written examination was scheduled but cancelled due to allegations of malpractice. Subsequently, the Commission decided to shortlist candidates based on academic qualifications and conduct interviews. The interviews were held in 2008, but the results were declared only in April 2010. The result showed a change in the selection criteria: the viva-voce marks were increased from 25 to 30, and academic marks were reduced from 60 to 60 (as per the result). Several unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions challenging the selection on grounds of arbitrariness, change in criteria, and awarding of viva-voce marks without bifurcation. The learned Single Judge quashed the selection, and the Division Bench dismissed the appeals. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the Commission had arbitrarily changed the selection criteria after the process had commenced, which violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the viva-voce marks were not allocated under specific heads, leading to opacity and potential favoritism. The Court also observed that the Commission had not provided any rational basis for shortlisting candidates or for the change in criteria. The appeals were dismissed, and the selection was quashed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Selection Process - Change of Criteria - Articles 14, 16 Constitution of India - The Haryana Staff Selection Commission changed the selection criteria after interviews were held, altering the marks for viva-voce from 25 to 30 and academic marks from 60 to 60 (as per result). The court held that once the selection process has commenced, the criteria cannot be changed arbitrarily, as it violates the principles of fairness and equality under Articles 14 and 16. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Viva-Voce Marks - Allocation under Heads - The Commission awarded viva-voce marks without bifurcating them under specific heads, leading to arbitrariness. The court held that marks for viva-voce must be allocated under distinct heads to ensure transparency and objectivity. (Paras 5-9) C) Service Law - Shortlisting - Rational Criteria - The Commission shortlisted candidates based on academic marks without any rational basis, and the criteria were changed from time to time. The court held that shortlisting must be based on a rational and transparent criteria, and any change must be justified. (Paras 2-4) D) Constitutional Law - Articles 14, 16 - Arbitrariness in Selection - The selection process was found to be arbitrary and discriminatory, as the Commission adopted a pick-and-choose policy. The court held that such arbitrariness violates the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Haryana Staff Selection Commission could change the selection criteria after the interview process had commenced, and whether the selection was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment quashing the selection of PTIs by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. The Court held that the change in selection criteria after the process had commenced was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Law Points
- Selection criteria cannot be changed after commencement of selection process
- Viva-voce marks must be allocated under specific heads
- Arbitrariness in selection violates Articles 14 and 16
- Shortlisting criteria must be rational and transparent
