Chandigarh: The Supreme Court has decided to examine “discrimination and arbitrariness” in the 2006 selection process for the position of deputy supervisor in the Haryana Prison Department who consumed the attraction submitted by Kapil Hood, who had challenged Haryana, who had challenged the decision of the Staff Election Commission Haryana (HSSC) At the appointment to the Deputy Inspector’s post.
In 2006, HSSC invited applications for the three positions of deputy supervisors, prisons.
The qualification prescribed for posting is a bachelor’s degree from a university recognized in art or science.
Ads also state that preferences will be given to candidates who hold degrees or diplomas in criminology.
Applicants have a Bachelor of Art degree from Panjab University and Postgraduate degree in Criminology from Lok Nayak Jayakrakash Narayan National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Sciences.
Of the total three posts, two are for the general category.
Hooda, which is included in the general category, also appears in the selection process which in the end he was not chosen.
The Supreme Court Division bench, which consisted of justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V Ramasubramanian, gave this order and issued a notification to HSSC, the Haryana government and candidates chosen for this post in 2006, look for their answers to the application.
Good qualified candidates given by disproportionately low signs: Scin this case, the performance of the candidate intended for the interview tilting the election of the election for candidates who were awarded 23.25 of 25 in Viva Voce, even though he secured 20.90 values ​​for education.
Qualifications, obtained as external candidates through correspondence courses.
The advantage of the possibility of referring to discrimination.
With a letter dated May 28, 2008, the applicant was told that the information he was looking for his letter on May 6, 2006, regarding the results of physical measurements could not be supplied because the physical measurement record was destroyed.
The applicant claimed that the selected candidate did not meet the minimum height criteria 5’7 ” and discriminatory, “the bench was observed.
This case will appear to hear in September.
In detail, the Supreme Court bench also observed, “Meanwhile it might be true, that in the implementation of jurisdiction in Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, the Court did not sit appealed by the decision taken by the Staff Election Commission, or start a comparative assessment of different candidates, for determine who is the best, the problem of what the conscience of this court is whether this court only has to sit and fold his arms when the prime facie election seems arbitrarily, without a written test, but only what is called Viva Voce, without the criteria made, when the candidate Called interviews are given signs strangely …
and a candidate who qualifies well given a low sign in disproportionately in interviews compared to less qualified candidates who pass through correspondence courses “.
Hoba has approached Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2007, challenging its non-selection especially in the field so that the weight is not given to post-graduation preferential qualifications in criminology.
Arguing his case before HC, the applicant said that the selected candidate did not have preferential qualifications.
Information obtained based on the RTI Act, the Petitioner argued that they had scored 43.90 marks and 43.10 marks, while the applicant had scored 40.29 marks.
He has argued that if the abbreviation of preferential qualifications, he will print more signs than the chosen candidate.
However, the request was dismissed by HC in December 2020.