Dismissed

Kavita Pannu v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2012CWP/1813/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of two respondents as Physical Training Instructors. The petitioner, an outstanding sports person with a higher gradation certificate, was not selected as she scored lower in the academic interview than the appointed candidates.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 to the post of PTI was upheld.

Kavita Pannu Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

CWP No. 1813 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CWP No. 1813 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision : May 22, 2012

Kavita Pannu

.... PETITIONER

Vs.

State of Haryana and others

¶10

..... RESPONDENTS

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶12

Present : Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶14

Mr. Dilbagh Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4.

¶15

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 to the post of Physical Training Instructors (hereinafter referred to as 'PTI') in the Outstanding Sports Persons Category, which result was declared on 11.04.2010 by Haryana Staff Selection Commission-respondent No.

¶17

CWP No. 1813 of 2011

¶18

¶19

2, on the ground that the petitioner holds a better gradation certificate than respondents No. 3 and 4 and, therefore, should have been preferred over and above these two respondents for appointment to the post of PTI.

¶20

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a State level athlete whereas respondents No. 3 and 4 are only the district level sports persons. While making selection to the post in question, the basic purpose, as is apparent, is that the outstanding sports persons have to be given preference. The purpose stands defeated when a person with a lower gradation certificate is given appointment whereas a person with higher gradation is ignored. He, however, could not dispute the fact that the definition for an outstanding sports person is fulfilled by respondents No. 3 and 4 as well as the petitioner. He, accordingly, prays for the present writ petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4.

¶21

On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that reservation is provided for outstanding sports persons as a class. Petitioners as well as respondents No. 3 and 4 fulfil the minimum mandate, which is provided for being considered in the Outstanding Sports Persons Category. After the said benchmark is cleared and thereafter they are treated equal and it is on the basis of the academic achievements of the candidates the marks were assigned which were fixed followed by an interview of 30 Marks.

¶22

CWP No. 1813 of 2011 3

¶23

The academic marks, as per the criteria laid down, when added with the viva-voce marks, the total marks are calculated and the persons higher in merit have been appointed. The cut off marks in the Outstanding Sports Persons Category are 54.8 and the petitioner has obtained 48.08 marks. Since the petitioner did not make the grade, she has not been selected by the Commission. He, accordingly, submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their assistance.

¶25

The posts were reserved for outstanding sports persons as a class, for which the criteria was laid down as to who would be considered to be falling in that category. It is not in dispute that respondents No. 3 and 4 do fulfil that mandate and are outstanding sports persons. Having cleared the first hurdle, the second process for selection was the academic achievements of the individual candidates. The Haryana Staff Selection Commission has laid down the criteria which reads as follows:-

¶26

“10/10+2 =30 marks =0.30 of the percentage of marks C.P.Ed./D.P.Ed. =30 marks =0.30 of the percentage of marks

¶27

Vive-Voce =30 marks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total=90 marks”

¶28

CWP No. 1813 of 2011

¶29

¶30

As per the said criteria, the candidates, who were to be considered under the Outstanding Sports Persons Category, were assessed and thereafter the merit was prepared. Petitioner did not fall in the merit list whereas respondents No. 3 and 4 did and their names were recommended for appointment and they were selected by respondent No. 2.

¶31

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that higher grade certificate holders who belong to Outstanding Sports Persons Category, should be preferred over the persons with lower grade certificate, cannot be accepted as it would fall within the domain of the Government as it is a Policy matter as to what and how much weightage has to be given to the grading of the certificates. The only benchmark, which has been laid as far as the Outstanding Sports Persons Category is concerned, was possession of a particular category of certificates which admittedly the petitioner as well as respondents No. 3 and 4 possess. After having achieved their right for consideration under the Outstanding Sports Persons Category thereafter the criteria has been laid down. As far as the academic achievements are concerned, Commission has proceeded to apply the said criteria uniformly. The criteria, which has been laid down by the Commission, does not suffer from any vice or illegality which would call for any interference by this Court.

¶32

In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ

¶33

CWP No. 1813 of 2011

¶34

¶35

petition, the same stands dismissed.

¶36

May 22, 2012 pj

¶37

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE

Kavita Pannu v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavita Pannu v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sharmila & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ram Rattan and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ganga Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Krishan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.