Supreme Court Quashes PTI Selection in Haryana Due to Arbitrary Criteria Changes: Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. (2020) INSC 218 (08 April 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 08 April 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 218
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., Navin Sinha, J.
Can a selection process be deemed fair when the criteria are changed arbitrarily mid-way? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the selection of Physical Training Instructors (PTIs) in Haryana. The court found that the selection process was flawed due to arbitrary changes in the criteria by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, leading to the quashing of the entire selection. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The Haryana Staff Selection Commission (Commission) initiated a recruitment process for 1,983 Physical Training Instructor (PTI) posts through Advertisement No. 6 of 2006, dated 20.07.2006. Initially, the Commission planned a written examination followed by an interview. However, this plan was changed multiple times, leading to a controversial selection process.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Several writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the selection list dated 10.04.2010. The petitioners alleged that the Commission had changed the selection criteria arbitrarily, favoring certain candidates over others. The High Court, after examining the original records, quashed the selection process. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge. The selected candidates then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Haryana Staff Selection Commission’s powers are derived from notifications issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. These notifications empower the Commission to devise the mode of selection and fix the criteria for selection of posts. Specifically, the notification dated 21.06.2007, substituted paragraph 6(d), stating that the Commission shall devise the mode of selection and fix the criteria for selection of posts.

The relevant legal provisions include:

• Article 309 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the government to make rules for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services.
• Notification dated 28.01.1970: Constituted the Subordinate Services Selection Board (later renamed Haryana Staff Selection Commission).
• Notification dated 09.12.1997: Renamed the Subordinate Services Selection Board as the Haryana Staff Selection Commission.
• Notification dated 28.07.1998: Empowered the Commission to devise the mode of selection and fix the criteria for selection.
• Notification dated 21.06.2007: Amended the constitution of the Commission and reiterated its power to devise the mode of selection and fix criteria.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The writ petitioners participated in the selection without protest and are therefore estopped from challenging it later.
• The selection criteria were uniformly applied to all candidates.
• There were valid reasons for cancelling the written examination.
• The Commission applied the same criteria as in the 2003 selection (60 marks for academics and 30 for viva-voce).
• Courts should not interfere with the marks allocated in viva-voce.
• The appellants have worked for about 10 years and should not be displaced now.

Respondent Writ Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The writ petitioners were unaware of the selection criteria until the final result was declared on 10.04.2010.
• The Commission should have declared the criteria beforehand.
• The cancellation of the re-notified written examination was without valid reason.
• The Commission deliberately gave low marks to candidates with high academic scores and high marks to those with poor academic records.
• The Commission did not adhere to its own notification to shortlist candidates.
• The entire selection process was flawed and designed to favor certain candidates.

Commission’s Arguments:

• The criteria of 60 marks for academics and 30 marks for viva-voce was applied in the 2003 selection as well.
• There were no guidelines on how marks were to be awarded in the viva-voce.
• The post of PTI has been converted to TGT (Trained Graduate Teacher) under the Haryana School Education (Group-C) State Cadre Service Rules, 2012, and is now a dying cadre.
• There are no current vacancies for PTI posts.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the respondent writ petitioners who had participated in the selection were estopped from challenging the selection in the facts of the present case?
2. Whether the respondent writ petitioners could have challenged the criteria of selection applied by Commission for selection after they had participated in the selection?
3. Whether the decision dated 30.06.2008 to cancel the written examination and the decision dated 11.07.2008 to call the candidates for interview 8 times number of vacancies on minimum percentage of marks as fixed therein and the decision dated 31.07.2008 to call all the eligible candidates for interview were arbitrary decisions to change the selection criteria published on 28.12.2006, which have the effect of downgrading the merit in the Selection?
4. Whether it was obligatory for the Commission as a body to take all decisions pertaining to Selection on the post of PTI including the decision of not holding written examination, decision to screen on the basis of 8 times of vacancies and the decision to call all eligible candidates and whether aforesaid decisions were taken by the Chairman alone?
5. Whether on 03.08.2008, a decision was taken by the commission fixing the criteria for the selection on the post of PTI which was signed by all the members on 03.08.2008 as claimed by the Commission?
6. Whether without there being any specific allegations of mala fide against the Chairman and members of the Commission and without they having been impleaded by name as party respondents, the writ petitioners could have challenged the allocation of marks in viva-voce and the High Court was right in accepting the claim that candidates who got the highest marks for academic qualifications ranging between 40 to 48.74 marks have been awarded just 7 to 9 marks in the viva-voce and as against it there are hundreds of selected candidates who have been awarded 20 to 27 out of 30 marks in the viva-voce to ensure that they outclass the academically bright candidates?
7. Whether no fresh selection can be held as directed by learned Single Judge since as per 2012 Rules, the post of PTI has been declared as a dying cadre and the post has merged into the post of TGT Physical Education?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court

• Article 309 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the government to make rules for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services.
• Haryana School Education (Group-C) State Cadre Service Rules, 2012: Governs the service conditions of teachers in Haryana.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Madan Lal and Others Vs. State of J&K and Others, (1995) 3 SCC 486*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the principle of estoppel does not apply when the selection process is marred by glaring illegalities and the candidate is unaware of the criteria.
• Raj Kumar and Others Vs. Shakti Raj and Others, (1997) 9 SCC 527*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that estoppel does not apply when there are glaring illegalities in the procedure.
• Bishnu Biswas and others Union of India and others, (2014) 5 SCC 774*: The Court cited this case to support its finding that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection process has begun.
• Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (1981) 4 SCC 159*: The Court used this case to highlight the importance of merit-based selection and open competition in public services.
• Tamil Nadu Computer Science BED Graduate Teachers Welfare Society(1) vs. Higher Secondary School Computer Teachers Association and others, 2009(14) SCC 517*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that qualifying norms cannot be changed after the examination.
• Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited Vs. RDS Projects Limited and Others, (2013) 1 SCC 524*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the present case involves “malice in law” rather than “malice in fact,” and that the allegations were supported by the pattern of marks.
• State of Haryana and Another Vs. Sandeep Singh and Others, (2019) 6 SCC 453*: The Court used this case to clarify that the 2012 Rules did not automatically convert all PTI posts to TGT posts.
• C. Channabasavaih Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Mysore and Others, AIR 1965 SC 1293*: The Court cited this case to highlight that the continuance based on interim order is subject to the outcome of the litigation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Arbitrary Changes in Selection Criteria: The court found that the Haryana Staff Selection Commission arbitrarily changed the selection criteria multiple times, which undermined the principle of merit-based selection. The initial plan of a written test followed by an interview was scrapped, and the criteria were changed without any valid reason.
• Lack of Transparency: The court noted that the Commission did not disclose the criteria for selection to the candidates until the final result was published. This lack of transparency was a major concern for the court.
• Manipulation of Marks: The court observed that candidates with high academic scores were deliberately given low marks in the viva-voce, while those with poor academic records were given high marks. This manipulation of marks indicated a bias in the selection process.
• Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The court held that the Commission’s actions violated the principles of natural justice by not providing a fair and equal opportunity to all candidates.
• Malice in Law: The court concluded that the Commission’s actions constituted “malice in law” because they were done without lawful excuse and with an oblique motive.

The court rejected the argument that the petitioners were estopped from challenging the selection process because they were not informed of the criteria until the final result. The court also rejected the argument that the Commission had valid reasons for cancelling the written examination, noting that no reasons were disclosed. The court also found that the Commission had manipulated the marks in the viva-voce to favor certain candidates. The court concluded that the entire selection process was flawed and arbitrary.

The Court observed, “It is unfortunate that instead of reversing his unlawful decisions, taken by side-tracking eight other Members (as it was a nine-Member body since 21.06.2007), the Chairman involved those other Members in a mock-drill and flashed a surprise on the learned Single Judge by producing the magical ‘single loose sheet’ of their purported decision dated 03.08.2008 laying down the ‘criteria for selection’.”

The Court further noted, “The above sequence of events indicates that in accordance with the “special instruction” extracted above the Commission decided the criteria for calling the candidates for the selection as holding of written examination of 200 marks and interview for 25 marks which was the perfect criteria looking to the number of the candidates i.e. 20836 who had applied in pursuance of the advertisement for the post of PTI.”

The Court also stated, “The statutory notifications when entrust the Commission to devise the mode of selection and fix the criteria and the Commission being multi-member body, Chairman alone was not competent to alter the mode of selection and the criteria, which was fixed and published for conducting the selection for the post of PTI.”

The court rejected the argument that the post of PTI is a dying cadre and that fresh selection cannot be held. The court clarified that the 2012 Rules did not completely abolish the post of PTI, and that fresh selection can be held for the post of PTI.

Key Takeaways

• Selection processes must be fair, transparent, and based on merit.
• Selection criteria cannot be changed arbitrarily mid-way through the process.
• Recruiting bodies must disclose the selection criteria to candidates beforehand.
• Manipulation of marks in viva-voce is a serious violation of the principles of natural justice.
• Decisions regarding selection criteria must be taken by the Commission as a whole, not by the Chairman alone.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The Commission shall conclude the selection process initiated by Advertisement No. 6 of 2006 as per the criteria notified on 28.12.2006 (written test of 200 marks and viva-voce of 25 marks).
2. All applicants who had submitted applications in response to the advertisement, including those who were selected, shall be permitted to participate in the fresh selection.
3. The candidates who have worked on the post of PTI shall not be asked to refund any salary or benefits received.
4. The entire process must be completed within five months from the date the Commission starts working after the lockdown is over.
5. The costs imposed by the Division Bench are deleted, except for the costs imposed on the Commission.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that selection criteria cannot be changed arbitrarily mid-way through the selection process, and that all decisions pertaining to selection must be taken by the Commission as a whole, and not by the Chairman alone. This decision reinforces the principles of fairness, transparency, and merit-based selection in public employment, and clarifies that the principle of estoppel does not apply when the selection process is marred by glaring illegalities and the candidate is unaware of the criteria. The court also clarified that the post of PTI is not completely abolished, and fresh selection can be held for the post of PTI.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of maintaining transparency and fairness in public recruitment processes. The court’s ruling ensures that selection processes are not manipulated to favor certain candidates and that all applicants are given a fair opportunity to compete for public employment. This judgment serves as a reminder to recruiting bodies to adhere to the principles of natural justice and to ensure that all decisions are taken in a transparent and lawful manner.