Homework-9

CASE ANALYSIS

Name of the Case: Ashok kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Citation: 1987 AIR 454

Bench: Bhagwati, P.N.

Principle: Principle of natural Justice- Supreme Court invoked the Doctrine of Necessity
expressly and held that the decision by the Committee valid and untarnished by any sort of bias.
Supreme Court showed that Doctrine of Necessity acts as an exception to official bias.
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 316 and 226 Public Service Commission

Facts: In a written examination held by the Haryana Public Service Commission for recruitment
to 61 posts in Haryana Civil Service (Executive) and other allied Services, over 1300 candidates
obtained more than 45% marks and thus qualified 658 for being called for interview for the
viva-voce examination.

The Haryana Public Service Commission invited all the candidates for the viva –voce
examination and the interviews lasted for almost half a year. The number of vacancies also rose
during the time taken up in the written examination and the viva voce test and ultimately 119
posts became available for being filled and on the basis of total marks obtained in the written
examination as well a viva- voce test, 119 candidates were selected and recommended by the
Haryana Public Service Commission to the State Government.

The respondents-petitioners had obtained very high marks at the written examination but owing
to rather poor marks obtained in the viva voce test, they could not come within the first 119
candidates and were consequently not selected. They filed several writ petitions in the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the validity of the selection of the appellants and
seeking a writ for quashing and setting aside the same.

Issues:

-Whether Under 316 and 226 Public Service Commission Chairman and Members possess
qualification to select candidates of being men of integrity and calibre?
 Homework-9

-Whether High Court has power to inquire in such question?

-Whether condemnatory observations made by the High Court against the Chairman and
Members of Public Service Commission without their party respondents justified?

Arguments:

Arguments of Respondents:

The respondents-petitioners contended before the High Court:

(1) that the Chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service Commission were not men of
high integrity, caliber and qualification and they were appointed solely as a matter of political
patronage and hence the selections made by them were invalid;

(2) that three of the selected candidates were related to two members of the Commission
namely, Shri R.C. Marya and Shri Raghubar Dayal Gaur and though these two members did not
participate in the interview of their respective relatives, they did participate in the interview of
other candidates and the tactic adopted by the Chairman and the members of the Commission
was to give high marks to the relatives and award low marks to the other candidates so as to
ensure the selection of their relatives. This vitiated the entire selection process;

(3) that the number of candidates called for interview were almost 20 times the number of
vacancies and this not only imposed an intolerable burden on the Haryana Public Service
Commission but also widened the scope for arbitrariness in selection by making it possible for
the Haryana Public Service Commission to boost up or deflate the total marks which might be
obtained by a candidate. This infirmity had the effect of invaliding the selection made by
Haryana Public Service Commission;

(4) That the allocation of 200 marks for the viva voce test out of a total of 900 marks for the
generality of students and a total of 600 marks for ex servicemen was arbitrary and excessive
and it had the effect of distorting the entire process of selection and it was accordingly
unconstitutional as involving denial of equal opportunity in public employment; and

(5) That the viva voce test was not conducted fairly and honestly and the selections made were
vitiated on account of nepotism, favoritism and casteism and also political motivation.
 Homework-9

Arguments of Appellants:

The appellants, however, submitted that the challenge to the validity of selections was
unfounded on the grounds;

(i) that not only was it not competent to the Court on the existing set of pleadings to examine
whether the Chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service Commission were men of
high integrity, calibre and qualification but also there was no material at all on the basis of
which the Court could possibly come to the conclusion that they were men lacking integrity,
caliber or qualification;

(ii) that the Haryana public Service Commission being a constitutional authority it was not
necessary for Sh. R.C.M Arya and Sh. Raghubar Dayal Gaur to withdraw altogether from 659
the interviews and they acted correctly in abstaining from participation when their relatives
came to be interviewed. This was in conformity with the principles of fair play and did not
affect the validity of the selections;

(iii) that under Regulation 3 in Appendix I, the Haryana Public Service Commission was
justified in calling for interview all the 1300 and odd candidates who qualified by getting more
than 45% marks;

(iv) that the allocation of 200 marks for the viva voce test was made under the Punjab Civil
Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 and it had stood the test of time and could not possibly
be regarded as arbitrary or excessive; and

(v) that the selections were made fairly and honestly and they were not tainted by nepotism,
favoritism, casteism or political patronage, besides there was nothing to show that any
extraneous considerations had influenced the selection process.

Reasoning for judgment:

-That the marks allocated for viva voce test shall not exceed 12.2 per cent of the total marks
taken into account for the purpose of selection, the Board has acted improperly and committed
patent illegality in keeping viva voce marks at 28.5 per cent, that the higher percentage of marks
has been kept by the Board with a view to absorb the kith and kin of the members.
 Homework-9

-The Supreme Court has held that the number of candidates called shall not be more than thrice
the number of vacancies.

-The actions of the Board are arbitrary and violative of the article 14 and 16 of the Indian
Constitution.

Referred cases:

A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150

D.K. Khanna v. Union of India & Ors, (1973) 1 SLR 80

Surinder Nath Goel v. State of Punjab (1973) 1 Ser. L.R. 690

M Ariffudin v. D.D. Chitaley & ors. (1873) 2 ser. L.R. 119

Judgment:

The court directed that when selections to the Judicial Services are being made in a state, a
sitting Judge of the High Court to be Nominated by the Chief Justice of the state should be
invited to participate in the interview as an expert who, by reason of the fact that he is a sitting
High Court Judge, knows the quality and character of the candidates appearing for the interview
and the advice given by him should ordinarily be accepted, unless there are string and cogent
reasons for not accepted such advice and by the Chairman and members of the Public Service
Commission. We would therefore direct that all the candidates who secured a minimum of 45
per cent marks in the written examination but who could not find entry in the select list, should
be given one more opportunity of appearing in the competitive examination which would now
have to be held in accordance with the principles laid down in this Judgment.

PRAVALYA KAMIREDDY

2018067