A STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
v.
MANJIT SINGH AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
B [BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.]
Constitution of India-Article 320-Public Service Cimmissions-
Powers of-Recruitment on reserved posts-Interview ofcandidates having
certain educational qualifications being the method prescribed by
C Government-Commission prescribing an additional screening test with
minimum qualifying marks for ensuring efficiency in public administration-
Held, not permissible-Commission must conform to the provisions oflaw,
rules and regulations and take into account the policy decisions of the
Government-No extra qualification can be imposed by the Commission
D if the Government does not prescribe any special qualification in case of
reserved posts-Articles 16(4) and 335.
Service Law-Recruitment-Government providing for recruitment
on the basis of interview of candidates having certain educational
qualifications-Public Service Commission adding a screening test and
E also providing for minimum qualifying marks for short listing app/icants-
Held, fixation ofminimum qualifying marks may defeat the purpose ofshort
listing-Fixation ofminimum qualifying marks for short listing not desirable
nor required.
F The Punjab Public Service Commission issued an advertisement
for recruitment of medical officers. The mode of selection prescribed
by the State Government was only interview of eligible candidates on
the basis of their educational qualifications. The policy of the
Government was that candidates belonging to reserved categories
G possessing minimum qualification/experience should not be put to any
test to cheek their suitability for appointment.
Out of the 500 vacancies advertised, 62 seats were reserved for
Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs and 63 seats were reserved for Scheduled
Casts (General) candidates. 303 Scheduled Castes (General) candidates
H and 27 Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs applied pursuant to the
856
STAJ'E v. MANJIT SINGH 857
advertisement After receiving the applications, the Commission notified A
that it would hold a screening test for all categories of candidates and
only those who qualify the screening test would be called for interview.
The Commission fixed 40% marks in the screening test as the minimum
qualifying marks for candidates in the reserved category. As a result
of the screening test only 59 Scheduled Castes (General) candidates B
and 4 Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs could qualify for the interview.
The aggrieved candidates challenged the method adopted by the
Commission. The High Court struck down the methodology adopted
by the Commission in holding the screening test and prescribing the
minimum qualifying marks as unreasonable and arbitrary. C
The Commission and the State Government filed appeals before
this Court. The Commission contended that it was a constitutional and
independent authority and was duty bound to make endeavour to
secure efficiency in public administration. While doing so the D
Commission would not be subservient to the direction of the State
Government unless permissible under the law.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1. The Public Service Commission derives its powers E
under Article 320 of the Constitution of India as well as its limits too.
Independent and fair working of the Public Service Commission is of
utmost importance. It is also not supposed to function under any pressure
ofthe Government. Bu tat the same time it has to conform to the provisions
of the law and has to abide by the rules and regulations on the subject and F
to take into account the policy decisions which are within the domain of
the State Government. It cannot impose its own policy decision in a
matter beyond its purview. [870-E-F)
Dr. Sadhna Devi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1997) 3 sec 90, G
distinguished.
1.2. It would ·be a matter of policy to be decided by the State
Government as to what measures, if necessary, may be provided
regarding reservations vis-a-vis maintenance of efficiency in services.
Where no special qualification or any prescribed standard of efficiency H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A over and above the eligibility criteria is provided by the Rules or the
State, it would not be for the Public Service Commission to impose any
extra qualification/standard supposedly for maintaining minimum
efficiency which it thinks, may be necessary. No consultation with the
Public Service Commission, in such matters, is envisaged in view of
B clause (4) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India. [869-E-F)
2.1. There can be no doubt about the powers and functions of the
Public Service Commission in short listing of candidates. If a large
number of candidates apply for recruitment to a small number of
posts, it would obviously not be possible to take full test/examination
C and interview of such large number of applicants, though eligible. In
that event those candidates, in respect of whom it would serve no
purpose to call them for further test, may be excluded by adopting the
method of screening test. (865-D]
D 2.2. For the purpose of short listing it would not at all be necessary
to provide cut-off marks. Any number of given candidates could be
taken out from the top of the list up to the number of the candidates
required in order of merit. Generally speaking calling 3-5 candidates
for interview for one post is normally accepted depending upon the
E number of seats. Therefore, for 100 posts the selecting body may in
order of merit take about first 500 candidates for further tests/
interview. If that is so any candidate who is otherwise eligible up to
the 500th position whatever be the percentage of marks obtained by
him would be eligible to be called for further tests. The rest of the
candidates would be screened out. Thus the purpose of short listing
F would be achieved without prescribing any minimum cut-off marks.
No candidate excluded by adopting such a method for short listing can
raise any grievance whatsoever. (865-F, 865-E-F)
2.3. In case cut-off marks is fixed in the name of short listing of
G the candidates and the number of candidates obtaining such minimum
marks, is less than the number of vacancies, in that event screening test
itself will amount to a selection by excluding those who though possess
the prescribed quantification and are eligible for consideration but
they would be out of the field of consideration by reason of not crossing
H the cut-off marks as may be fixed by the recruiting body. If in another
STATE v. MANJIT SINGH [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 859
situation many more than the required number of candidates obtain A
marks above the cut-off marks, all of them may have to be called for
further tests and interview etc. It would in that event not serve the
purpose of short listing by this method to obtain the given ratio of
candidates. [865-G-H, 866-A]
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2305-06
of 1999.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.6.98 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 19008 and 19123 of 1997.
c
WITH
C.A. Nos. 5461/99, 809, 961, 51/2000 and 5165 of 2001.
H.S. Munjral, Ms. Kanwaljit Kochar and R.S. Suri for the Appellants. D
Nidhesh Gupta, Naveen Singh, Ms. S. Minakshi Vij, Dr. K.S.
Chauhan, Chand Kiran, A.P. Natarajan, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Ms. Indra
Sawheny, Mrs. Rekha Palli and Debasis Misra for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
BRIJESH KUMAR, J. : The above noted appeals involve a common
question of law, hence they have been heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment. There may be some minor
differences here and there on facts but without effecting the main question F
involved, hence for the purposes of dealing with the matter, we refer to
the facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 2305-06/1999. The main question for our
consideration in these appeals is as to whether it was competent for the
Punjab Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') to resort
to screening test with a view to shortlist the number of candidates to bring G
it to the ratio of three to five candidates per vacancy and further, whether
keeping in view the efficiency required for the services in respect of which
selection and appointments was to be made, could a written test be held
to fix some minimum cut off marks, where process of selection was by
interview of eligible candidates belonging to reserve category. H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A The High Court, in the judgments impugned in the above noted
appeals, held that the action of the Commission in holding the screening
test and prescribing the minimum qualifying marks was unreasonable,
arbitrary and discriminatory. Hence, gave a direction that the Commission
would interview the petitioners if not already interviewed and declare the
B result of the selection as per their merit within the time specified. The
Commission has preferred the above noted appeals along with the State of
Punjab as one of the appellants. The main thrust of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Commission is that the commission is a
constitutional and independent authority and it is its duty to make an
endeavour to secure efficiency in the public administration by selecting the
C suitable candidates for the public services. While discharging such a duty,
it is submitted that it would not be subservient to the direction of the
government unless permissible under the law. Thus, to the extent indicated
above, there may be some conflict in the stand between the State
Government and the Commission. But both are impleaded as appellants,
D the lead was taken by the learned counsel appearing for the Commission,
who virtually, alone made his submissions.
The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement No. 4 of 1997
was issued by the Commission for recruitment of 500 Medical Officers in
P.C.M.S. (Class-I). In all 303 Scheduled Castes (General) (for short S.C.)
E candidates applied. The candidates belonging to other Reserved categories
like S.C. (Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs) also applied. The Commission
scrutinized the applications and notified to hold a screening test on
28.9.1997 for all categories of candidates. So far S.C. candidates are
concerned, out of 303 applications, 279 appeared as S.C. (General)
F candidates out of which 59 could clear the test. To complete the details
of the break-up of the number of seats and reservation etc. it may be
indicated that out of 500 vacancies, 125 were reserved for S.C. candidates
50 per cent of which, namely 62 posts for Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs and
the remaining for the general category ofS.C.s. Only 27 persons belonging
G to Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs applied out of which only four could clear
the test. The Commission fixed 45% cut-off marks for general category
candidates and 40% ~ut off mark~ for S.C. candidates for their consideration
for the selection. The prescribed mode of selection was only interview of
eligible candidates on the basis of their educational qualifications.
H That State Government has issued instructions vide letters dated
STATE v. MANJIT SINGH [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 861
14.5.1969 and 5.5.1970, indicating the circumstances in which it would be A
appropriate to hold a test viz. where the number of candidates in the
reserved category is more than the number of seats available, a competitive
test could be held but no test is to be held where the number of candidates
available may be equal or less than the number of the seats. The letters
dated 14th May, 1969 and 5th May, 1970 issued by the Punjab Government B
are quoted below :
"No. 3925/6:S:W:/9778 ANN.P-7
From
c
The Secretary, Govt. of Punjab,
Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes
Department
To
D
All heads of departments, Commissioners of Divisions,
Deputy Commissioners, registrar, Punjab & Haryana High Court,
District and Sessions Judges and Sub-Divisional Officers (Civil)
in the State.
E
Dated Chandigarh 14 May, 1969.
Sub: Reservation for members of Scheduled Castes and Backward
classes in the Punjab State Government Services.
F
Sir,
I am directed to address you on the above mentioned subject
and to say that sometimes written examination is held for
candidates of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes at the time
of recruitment in addition to the minimum prescribed qualifications, G
as a result the qualifications of the scheduled caste and backward
classes candidates against reserved posts become higher and the
candidates belonging to scheduled castes and backward classes
who possess minimum prescribed qualifications for the post/posts
are not appointed. H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A 2. The government, after considering this matter, has decided that
scheduled castes/backward classes candidates who possess
minimum prescribed qualifications should not be put to any such
test that may deprive them of the posts reserved for them. In case
appointing authority/recruiting institution consider it necessary
can hold some other test among the scheduled castes candidates
B
in order to test the level of their ability. But the posts reserved
for them should be given to them according to their qualification.
The meaning of these instructions is that the reserved posts be
offered to scheduled castes/backward classes candidates who
fulfill the minimum prescribed qualifications so that they can get
c their due right in the state services.
The receipt of this letter may be sent.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
D Secretary, Govt. Punjab
Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes
Department."
"ANN.P-8
E
From
The Secretary, Govt. of Punjab,
Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes
Department
F
To
The Sec. Punjab Service Commission,
Patiala.
G Memo No. 1622 V.K.A. (W)-2-69/11246
Dated Chandigarh 5th May, 1970.
Sub: Reservation for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes
and Backward classes in the Punjab State Government
H Services.
STATE v. MANJIT SINGH [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 863
Yours attention is drawn to your letter No. 198/69.C.A.G. A
dated the 22nd December, 1969 on the subject cited above.
2. In this connection, it is also clarified that the Directions issued
vide Pb. govt. letter No. 3925-6-S.W.-69/9778, dated 14.5.1969,
are applicable on the recruitments made through interview or B
other sources except the recruitments made through the competitive
examinations. For the posts, which are to be filled in through the
competitive examinations, the candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes who will acquire the
minimum prescribed standard of merit will be considered against C
the reserved posts and the completion of their suitability will be
held amongst themselves.
3. So far as the question of filling up the vacancies by way of
interview or some other source is concerned, the directions
mentioned in the aforesaid letter of the Punjab government are D
quite clear., meaning thereby the candidates belonging to scheduled
caste/Backward Classes possessing minimum qualification or
experience should not be put to any test to check their suitability
for appointment against reserved post. However, the Scheduled
Castes candidates can be put to test among themselves to ascertain E
the merit.
4. It is also pointed out that if the eligible candidates belonging
to these castes and classes outnumber the posts reserved for them,
in such cases the deserving candidates having higher qualifications F
from amongst those candidates be recommended according to the
number of reserved posts.
Sd/-
Secretary, Pb. Govt. G
Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes
Welfare Department."
The Resolution of the Public Service Commission upon which main
thrust has been provided, reads as follows : H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A "21.10.91
A meeting of the Commission was held today, the 21st October,
1991, at 12.30 P.M. to discuss the criteria for screening the
candidates for various posts advertised from time to time.
B The Commission decided to take screening test for various posts
in order to shortlist the candidates. It has also been decided that
the number of candidates to be called for interviews shall be
limited to 3-5 times the number of vacancies notified by the
government category-wise.
c
But in order to ensure minimum norms ofefficiency and standards
in public administration, the Commission examined the matter in
depth and decided that in future, no candidate belonging to the
general category, shall be called for interview unless he obtains
45% marks in the screening test and in the case of Scheduled
D
Caste/Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes no candidate shall
be called for interview unless he obtains 40% marks, in the said
test.
E Sd/-
Chairman, Members & Secretary
21.10.1991"
(Emphasis supplied)
F The other resolution on which emphasis has been laid and which is also
reflected in the tenor of the arguments of the learned counsel for the
Commission, reads as under :
"15.4.97
G The Commission placed on record that it is a constitutional and
independent authority and plays a pivotal role in selections and
appointments of persons to public service. It endeavours to secure
efficiency in public administration by selecting suitable persons
for appointment of public service. It has to perform its duty in an
H independent and objective manner without any influence or
STATE v. MANJIT SINGH [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 865
direction of any other authority. It is not subservient to the A
directions of the Government unless such directions are permissible
by law. The Commission is fully competent and duty bound to
hold competitive examinations and conduct interviews for selecting
suitable candidates as per the criteria fixed by it as long as it does
not militate against the law." B
The High Court, in the impugned judgment, referring to another
decision of a Division Bench on the same point in Dr. L9vekesh Kumar
& 4 others, and taking into account the facts of the case in hand, came to
the conclusion that the decision of the Commission to hold a screening test
was discriminatory and arbitrary. C
Now adverting to the point under consideration, it may be observed
that so far the powers and functions of the Commission in shortlisting of
candidates is concerned, there can certainly be no doubt about it. Say for
example I 0,000 candidates apply for recruitment to I 00 posts, it would D
obviously not be possible to take full test/examination and interview of
such large number of applicants, though eligible. In that event shortlisting
of the candidates by screening out those, in respect of whom it would serve
no purpose to call them for further test, may be excluded by adopting the
method of screening test. Generally speaking a ratio of 3-5 candidates for E
one post is normally accepted depending upon the number of seats.
Therefore, for I 00 posts the selecting body may in order of merit take out
about first 500 candidates for further tests/interview. The rest of the
candidates would be screened out. No candidate excluded by adopting such
a method for shortlisting can raise any grievance whatsoever.
F
But for such shortlisting as indicated above, it is not necessary to fix
any minimum qualifying marks. Any candidate on the top of the list at
number I down upto 500 would obviously constitute the shortlisted zone
of consideration for selection. For the purpose of elaboration it may be
observed that in case some cut-off marks is fixed in the name of shortlisting G
of the candidates and the number of candidates obtaining such minimum
marks, suppose is less than I 00 in that event screening test itself will
amount to a selection by excluding those who though possess the prescribed
qualification and are eligible for consideration but they would be out of
the field of consideration by reason of not crossing the cut-off marks as H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A may be fixed by the recruiting body. This would not be a case of
shortlisting. In shortlisting, as observed above, any number of candidates
required in certain proportion of the number of vacancies, they may be
shortlisted in order of merit from serial no. 1 upto the number of candidates
required.
B In the present case, the stand of the appellant Commission is that for
medical services where the members of service have to deal with the health
and life of the people, they must have some minimum standard of
efficiency and it is the bounden duty of the Commission to ensure the same.
It is perhaps with this view in mind that the Commission fixed 45%
C minimum qualifying cut-off marks for general category candidates and
40% cut-off marks for Scheduled Caste candidates. We feel, here lies the
fallacy in the whole reasoning of the Commission. It is no doubt true that
the Commission is an independent and autonomous body and has to work
without influence of any authority or the government. It is rather under
D duty to act independently. But at the same time the fact cannot be lost sight
of that the State Government is competent to lay down the qualifications
for differernt posts, and frame rules for the purpose or take policy decisions
which may of course not be against the law. In this context, we may refer
to the provisions contained under Article 320 of the Constitution. It reads
E as under:
"Article 320. - Functions of Public Service Commissions-
I. It shall be the duty of the Union and the State public Service
Commissions to conduct examinations for appointments to
F the services of the Union and the services of the State
respectively.
2. It shall also be the duty of the Union Public Service
Commission, if requeste~ by any two or more States to do,
to assist those States in framing and operating schemes of
G joint recruitment for any services for which candidates
possessing special qualifications are required.
3. The Union Public Service Commission or the State
Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be
H consulted -
STATE v. MANJIT SINGH [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 867
(a) on all matters relating to methods ofrecruitment to civil A
services and for civil posts;
(b) on the principles to be followed in making appointments
to civil services and posts and in making promotions
and transfers from one service to another and on the B
suitability of candidates for such appointments,
promotions or transfers;
(c) on all disciplinary matters, affecting a person serving
under the Government of India or the Government of
a State in a civil capacity, including memorials or C
petitions relating to such matters;
(d) on any claim by or in respect of a person who is serving
or has served under the Government of India or the
Government of a State or under the Crown in India or D
under the Government of Indian State, in a civil
capacity, that any costs incurred by him in defending
legal proceedings instituted against him in respect of
acts done or purporting to be done in the execution of
his duty should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund
oflndia, or, as the case may be, out of the Consolidated E
Fund of the State.
(e) on any claim for the award of a pension in respect of
injuries sustained by a person while serving under the
Govt. of India or the Government of a State or under F
the Crown in India or under the Government of an
Indian State, in a civil capacity, and any question as to
the amount of any such award,
and it shall be the duty of a Public Service Commission to advise G
on any matter so referred to them and on any other matter which
the President, or, as the case may be, the Governor of the State
may refer to them.
Provided that the President as respects the all-India services and
also as respects other services and p,osts in connection with the H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A affairs of the Union and the Governor as respects other services
and posts in connection with the affairs of a State, may make
regulations specifying the matters in which either generally or in
any particular class of case or in any particular circumstances, it
shall not be necessary for a Public Service Commission to be
consulted.
B
4. Nothing in clause (3) shall require a Public Service
Commission to be consulted as respects the manner in which
any provision referred to in clause (4) of article 16 may be
made or as respects the manner in which effect may be given
C to the provisions of article 335.
5. All regulations made under the proviso to clause (3) by the
President or the Governor of a State shall be laid for not less
than fourteen days before each House of Parliament or the
House or each House of the Legislature of the State, as the
D
case may be, as soon as possible after they are made and
shall be subject to such modifications, whether by way of
repeal or amendment, as both Houses of Parliament or the
House or both Houses of Legislature of the State may make
during the session in which they are so laid."
E
It is to be noted that under clause (3), the Union Public Service Commission
or the State Public Service Commission, has to be consulted by the
Government relating to methods of recruitment in civil services and for
civil posts, promotions and transfers as well as about suitability of
F candidates etc. The consultation may also be in regard to disciplinary
matters affecting a person serving under the Government. We then find that
clause (4) particularly provides that nothing in clause (3) shall require
consultation of the Commission in respect to the manner in which any
provision referred to in Article 16(4) may be made or the manner in which
G the effect may be given to the provisions of Article 335. We may peruse
clause (4) of Article 16 and Article 335. They read as follows :
"Article 16(4)-Nothing in the article shall prevent the State from
making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts
in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion ·,
H of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under
STA TE v. MANJIT SINGH [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 869
the State. A
Article 335.-Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes to services and posts-The claims of the members of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken
into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of B
efficiency of administration in the making of appointments to
services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or
of a State.
Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in making
of any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes C
and the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any
examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation
in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts
_J
in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State."
D
Article 16(4) deals with Reservations and Article 335 pertains to
consideration of reservation consistent with maintenance of efficiency of
the administration. As indicated earlier, clause (4) of Article 320 clearly
provides that consultation of the Commission would not be necessary in
the matters relating to Articles 16(4) and 335. Therefore, it would be a E
matter of policy to be decided by the State Government as to what
measures, if necessary, may be provided regarding reservations vis-a-vis
maintenance of efficiency in services. Where no special qualification or
any prescribed standard of efficiency over and above the eligibility criteria
is provided by the Rules or the State, it would not be for the Commission F
to impose any extra qualification/standard supposedly for maintaining
minimum efficiency which, it thinks, may be necessary. No consultation
with the commssion, in such matters, is envisaged in view of Clause (4)
of Article 320 of the Constitution.
As observed earlier, for the purpose of shortlisting it would not at all G
be necessary to provide cut-off marks. Any number of given candidates
could be taken out from the top of the list upto the number of the candidates
required in order of merit. For example, there may be a situation where
more than required number of candidates may obtain marks above the cut-
off marks say for example out of 10,000 if 8,000 or 6,000 candidates obtain H
870 SUPREME: COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A 45% marks then all of them may have to be called for further tests and
interview etc. It would in that event not serve the purpose of shortlisting
by this method to obtain the given ratio of candidates, and the vacancy
available. For 100 vacancies at the most 500 candidates need be called. If
that is so any candidate who is otherwise eligible upto the 500th position
B whatever be the percentage above or below the fixed percentage would be
eligible to be called for further tests. Thus the purpose of shortlisting would
be achieved without prescribing any minimum cut-off marks.
In the case in hand, it was not for the Commission to have fixed any
cut-off marks in respect of reserved category candidates. The result has
C evidently been that candidates otherwise qualified for interview stand
rejected on the basis of merit say, they do not have the upto the mark merit,
as prescribed by the Commission. The selection was by interview of the
eligible candidates. It is certainly the responsibility of the Commission to
D
make the selection of efficient people amongst those who are eligible for
consideration. The unsuitable candidates could well be rejected in the
selection by interview. It is not the question of subservience but there are
.
certain matters of policies, on which the decision is to be taken by the
Government. The Commission derives its powers under Article 320 of the
Constitution as well as its limits too. Independent and fair working of the
E Commission is of utmost importance. It is also not supposed to function
under any pressure of the government, as submitted on behalf of the
appellant Commission. But at the same time it has to conform to the
provisions of the law and has also to abide by the rules and regulations
on the subject and to take into account the policy decisions which are
F within the domain of the State Government. It cannot impose its own policy
decision in a matter beyond its purview.
The appellant has also placed reliance upon a decision reported in
1997(3) SCC page 90, Dr. Sadhna Devi & Ors. v. State of UP. & Ors.
It, however, deals with an entirely different situation. The matter pertains
G to the admission to post-graduate course in the medical colleges. An
entrance test was prescribed which also prescribed minimum qualifying
marks. But so far the candidates belonging to S.C. and Scheduled Tribe
candidates the condition of obtaining the minimum qualifying marks was
removed by means of a Circular issued by the State Government. The
H Circular of the State Government was challenged by the other candidates,
STATE v. MANJIT SINGH [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 871
pleading discrimination. It was found that though regulating the selection A
procedure was within the competence of the State Government but
prescribing eligibility criteria for maintaining proper standards, fell within
the competence of Medical Council of India. In that view of the matter,
it was held that the State Government had decided to hold entrance
examination for selection instead of merit of M.B.B.S. examination and B
thus having prescribed minimum qualifying marks, it was not open to it
to do away with that criteria for reserved category candidates altogether.
It was thus found that once a decision was taken to prescribe minimum
qualifying marks it could not be said by the State Government that there
would be none for the reserved category candidates since it was within the
competence of the Medical Council of India to have Prescribed the criteria C
for maintaining proper standards. Therefore, the stand of the appellant
Commission in this case that, it being an independent body, is not
subservient to any authority or the State Government, hence it is competent
for it to lay down minimum efficiency standards including in the matters
which may fall within the purview of Article 335 of the Constitution, is D
erroneous.
Having considered the matter, we find that no interference is called
for in the judgment of the High Court. In the result, all the appeals are
dismissed with costs to be borne by the appellant Punjab Public Service E
Commission.
B.K.M. Appeals dismissed.