Only Final Merit List Should Be Prepared Category-Wise: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PGT Screening Test Result

Observing that, "social reservations are based on merit, and these are not rigid communal slots," the Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that before drawing the selection list, the meritorious among the reserved category candidates be first considered for selection against open/un-reserved posts.

While quashing the result of PGT (Mathematics), wherein a reserved category candidate was not considered in the selection list of a screening test despite scoring higher that the candidates selected in un-reserved merit list, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said, "there is no justification to categorise the candidates for shortlisting and during the process of selection as, firstly, it compromises merit and, secondly, militates against the rule of migration in reservation."

That is why, the correct method to give effect to the rule is, to draw only the final merit list on the basis of reserved categories of candidates; and, at that stage, before drawing the selection list, the meritorious among the reserved category candidates be first considered for selection against open/un-reserved posts. And the one who is able to secure an open/unreserved post on merit, will have to be first offered the same; the candidate next in merit in that specific reserved category is to be fill the vacancy so caused, said the Court.

"During the process of selection where the candidates are to clear various stages/tests, viz., screening test, subject knowledge test and/or interview etc., they are not to be categorized, i.e., considered within their respective reserved categories for assessing merit to cross these stages, since doing so would compromise merit, and they might be deprived of competing against open/un-reserved posts despite being meritorious."

It further noted that, in the instant selection, the candidates are confined to their respective reserved categories during the selection process, which deprives them of the right to be considered/migrated to open category slots/posts on the basis of merit.

Thus, the Scheme of Exam being followed by the respondents for making selection to the advertised posts, is contrary to the rule of reservation, opined the bench.

These observations came in response to the plea seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the result of screening test, and exam scheme vide which the petitioner had not been selected for appearing in the 'Subject Knowledge Test' for the post of Post Graduate Teacher/PGT- Mathematics by Haryana Public State Commission. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Scheme of Exam followed by the respondents is contrary to the settled law on the issue of reservation, that the reserved category candidates are to be considered against un-reserved/general posts at first instance. Short-listing of candidates on the basis of their respective reserved categories, is contrary thereto as it prevents them from being considered for selection against general/un-reserved posts on the basis of merit, irrespective of the category they belong to.

The petitioner scored 41.85 marks in the screening test in BC (B) category, which are higher than the marks scored by many of the general category candidates, who scored between 38.04 to 41.58, and have been selected for the subject knowledge test, as per the result declared; whereas, she has not been despite being more meritorious, added the counsel.

After considering the submissions, the Court noted that, result of screening test has been declared category-wise, i.e., by categorising candidates on the basis of the reserved categories they belong to, and confining them within these categories to determine eligibility for the subject knowledge test.

Resultantly, the petitioner who, as per the data provided in the petition and not specifically denied by the respondents, secured 41.85 marks as BC (B) category candidate and could not be selected for the subject knowledge test; whereas, the general category candidates who secured less marks, as compared to her, have been so selected, it added.

"Therefore, despite being meritorious, she has been prevented from crossing the eligibility benchmark and being considered for selection on the basis of merit against the un-reserved/open posts and thereupon, if need be, against the posts meant for BC (B) category to which she belongs. This in effect compromises merit, which is not the intent of rule of reservation," said the Court.

Justice Dahiya opined that the rule of migration (migration from the reserved category to un-reserved/open posts based on meritorious performance of the candidates), has to be given full effect to, and the appropriate manner to do so is by categorising the candidates in their respective categories only at the time of drawing final merit list, and not at any stage prior thereto.

The Court said that denying the petitioner from considering in the unreserved category despite scoring higher than the cut-off list, "has robbed her of the right to be considered for selection and appointment against the open/un-reserved posts on her own excellence."

Therefore, if a candidate is categorised resulting in his/her ouster from the process of selection before the final merit list is drawn, it will deprive such a candidate from being considered against open/un-reserved posts on merit. "This flies in the face of the rule of reservation, and cannot be permitted," it said.

Another reason why it opined that categorisation of candidates on the basis of their respective reserved categories during the process of selection, is bad in law is that, "It will be opposed to the rule of migration in reservation, which presupposes equality of opportunity and a level playing field in judging comparative merit of the candidates."

In the light of the above, the Court allowed the petition and conditions 1 (i) and 2 (e) of the Scheme/Pattern of Exam for PGT-Mathematics in advertisements , to the extent it is stipulated therein that candidates will be called, category-wise, for the next stage of selection process, i.e., subject knowledge test and interview/viva voce respectively, as well as the result of screening test  were quashed.

Appearance: Vivek Salathia, Advocate, for the petitioner

Parveen Mehta, DAG, Haryana

Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent/HPSC

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 11

Title: Parmila v. State of Haryana and another

Click here to read/download the order