Kanwar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service - promotion - matter related to validity of selection process - petitioner contended that he has previous experience and some weightage should be given to him on basis of that - competition is open to all persons - separate marks could not be allocated for previous service as in that event such persons will steal march over other candidates in open competition - no allegation of mala fides or arbitrariness of selection made. - central excise tariff act, 1985.[c.a. no. 5/1986]. schedule, chapter 87, headings 87.08; 87.14: [ashok bhan & dalveer bhandari, jj] explanatory notes in the harmonised commodity description and coding system, section 17 parts and accessories of motor vehicles - plastic name plates of motor vehicles held, plastic name plates are parts and accessories of motor vehicles and since they are not excluded from the section 17 of explanatory notes, the appropriate classification is under headings 87.08 and 87.14. it cannot be denied that name plates add to the convenient use of the motor vehicle. name plates serve a very useful purpose in as much as it gives an identity to the vehicle. each vehicle comes with different brand name and in different models having distinct features. the manufacturers of different type of models of vehicles market them under a name and the vehicles are recognised and referred to by the name plate affixed on them. name plates convey to the consumers the distinct features it carries. undoubtedly they add effectiveness and value to the vehicle and are at the very least accessories of the vehicle. thus, even if there would be any difficulty in the inclusion of the plastic name plates as parts of the motor vehicles, they would most certainly have been covered by the broader term accessory. it cannot be said in such a case that, if the base metal name plates are excluded from section 17 of notes, so must similar plastic goods be excluded. undoubtedly, name plates of base metal stand excluded from the scope of section 17 by virtue of being parts of general use as defined and specifically mentioned in chapter xv. now with respect to plastic name plates, if the reference to chapter 39 had not been made, then there would be no controversy at all. in such a case, all plastic product similar to those defined in chapter xv would be excluded regardless of an omission to specifically mention them within chapter 39. in other words, without any reference to chapter 39 in note 2(b), the only control on the meaning of similar goods of plastics would be the description of goods included within chapter xv. moreover, when note 2(b) refers to similar goods of plastics as in chapter 39, it must be interpreted to mean similarly defined goods in chapter 39. and since no definition or reference exists in chapter 39 regarding name plates, etc. one cannot find any exclusion with respect to these goods from chapter 87. for example, when the exclusion regarding base metal name plates is made, it is so because there exist specific and detailed headings in that chapter. but in the absence of such specific headings in chapter 39 the exclusion of the plastic name plates cannot be accepted from chapter 87 and include it within a residuary provision in chapter 39. - the petitioner having remained unsuccessful, filed writ petition in the high court challenging the selection process. however, since no consideration in that behalf was given, the selection was bad in law. the view taken by the high court is clear, justifiable and well founded. it is not the case of the petitioner that he had raised this point in the high court and the high court has failed to consider it. on the other hand, the high court has pointed out thus :records now before us show that the petitioner did not do fairly well to get high marks at the interview. 4. it indicates that the high court has considered the record of the selection board placed before it and on comparative evaluation of the candidates who secured combined marks in the written test as well as in the interview, 97 candidates were selected on the basis of the merit.order1. delay condoned. 2. this special leave petition arises from the judgment of the division bench of the punjab and haryana high court, made on october 1, 1996 in cwp no. 15380/96. 3. admittedly, the petitioner was promoted on an earlier occasion temporarily, as assistant sub-inspector in the year 1988 but ultimately the same came to be challenged and was set aside by an order of this court. thereafter, as per the directions of this court, written examination and interview were conducted. in the written examination, the petitioner secured 105 marks. subordinate service selection board has allotted 75% of the marks to the written test and 25%of marks to the interview. the petitioner having secured 105 marks, could not be selected since he could not make up in the interview. as many as 97 candidates were selected. the petitioner having remained unsuccessful, filed writ petition in the high court challenging the selection process. he contended that since he had previous experience, some weightage would have been given out of 25% marks on the basis of the previous experience. however, since no consideration in that behalf was given, the selection was bad in law. the high court has pointed out and, in our view rightly, that it s a competition open to all the persons. by fortuitous circumstances of the previous temporary promotion, separate marks could not be allocated for the previous service in which event such persons will steal a march over the other candidates in the open competition. the view taken by the high court is clear, justifiable and well founded. the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the persons who secured 80 marks in written examination have been selected by granting full 25% of the marks while the petitioner who secured 105 marks in the written examination could not be selected by being given some weightage out of 25% marks allotted for interview. as a consequence, the selection is arbitrary. the learned counsel seeks to place before us the list of such candidates who secured 80 marks, said to have been published by the board. since the document had not been made part of the record in the high court, we cannot look into the document. it is not the case of the petitioner that he had raised this point in the high court and the high court has failed to consider it. on the other hand, the high court has pointed out thus : records now before us show that the petitioner did not do fairly well to get high marks at the interview. consequently, persons who got similar marks as that secured by the petitioner in the written test, got higher rank by virtue of the marks secured by them at the interview. marks in the written test together with that obtained at the interview decided the rank in the select list.4. it indicates that the high court has considered the record of the selection board placed before it and on comparative evaluation of the candidates who secured combined marks in the written test as well as in the interview, 97 candidates were selected on the basis of the merit. the high court has pointed out that no allegation of mala fides or arbitrariness of selection was made. under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the high court warranting interference. 5. the special leave petition is dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, made on October 1, 1996 in CWP No. 15380/96.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted on an earlier occasion temporarily, as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the year 1988 but ultimately the same came to be challenged and was set aside by an order of this Court. Thereafter, as per the directions of this Court, written examination and interview were conducted. In the written examination, the petitioner secured 105 marks. Subordinate Service Selection Board has allotted 75% of the marks to the written test and 25%of marks to the interview. The petitioner having secured 105 marks, could not be selected since he could not make up in the interview. As many as 97 candidates were selected. The petitioner having remained unsuccessful, filed writ petition in the High Court challenging the selection process. He contended that since he had previous experience, some weightage would have been given out of 25% marks on the basis of the previous experience. However, since no consideration in that behalf was given, the selection was bad in law. The High Court has pointed out and, in our view rightly, that it s a competition open to all the persons. By fortuitous circumstances of the previous temporary promotion, separate marks could not be allocated for the previous service in which event such persons will steal a march over the other candidates in the open competition. The view taken by the High Court is clear, justifiable and well founded. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the persons who secured 80 marks in written examination have been selected by granting full 25% of the marks while the petitioner who secured 105 marks in the written examination could not be selected by being given some weightage out of 25% marks allotted for interview. As a consequence, the selection is arbitrary. The learned Counsel seeks to place before us the list of such candidates who secured 80 marks, said to have been published by the Board. Since the document had not been made part of the record in the High Court, we cannot look into the document. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had raised this point in the High Court and the High Court has failed to consider it. On the other hand, the High Court has pointed out thus :

Records now before us show that the petitioner did not do fairly well to get high marks at the interview. Consequently, persons who got similar marks as that secured by the petitioner in the written test, got higher rank by virtue of the marks secured by them at the interview. Marks in the written test together with that obtained at the interview decided the rank in the select list.

4. It indicates that the High Court has considered the record of the Selection Board placed before it and on comparative evaluation of the candidates who secured combined marks in the written test as well as in the interview, 97 candidates were selected on the basis of the merit. The High Court has pointed out that no allegation of mala fides or arbitrariness of selection was made. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the High Court warranting interference.

5. The special leave petition is dismissed.