Similarly, the appointments of numberinated Executive Class I Officers were terminated by order dated 23.5.2002.
Consequently, a general order dated 24.8.2002 was issued terminating the services of the appellants.
This was the main criterion used by the Chairman of the Commission for selection of desired candidates.
The report of the sub committee was accepted by the Full Bench of the High Court and a recommendation was made to the government to terminate the services of those who were appointed on the basis of the selections made during the tenure of R.S. Sidhu.
For example, if 3 candidates have 50, 60 and 70 marks in Graduation, their base marks 40 of the percentage in basic degree will be 20, 24 and 28 respectively.
On the recommendations made by the High Court, the State Government terminated the services of those who were appointed on the basis of the selections made by the Commission against the vacancies of the years 1998, 1999 and 2000.
In many of the selections there was a one Member Board.
For example, B 26 to 30 grade is given by the expert but the Board gave him her 32 marks.
These appellants have filed a number of writ petitions before the Punjab Haryana High Court which were dismissed by the impugned judgment of the Full Bench being devoid of any merit.
On a reference made by the State Government, the second sub companymittee examined the answer sheets of some of those who were selected as well as the answer sheets of those who were number selected and observed that a deliberate attempt had been made to give higher marks to some undeserving candidates and at the same time, lower marks were awarded to more meritorious candidates.
This irregularity may be due to clerical mistake companymitted by the PPSC staff and is therefore being verified.
Regarding Judicial Officers appointed to PCS Judicial Branch , the High Court companystituted a sub committee of five Judges to scrutinize the record of selection.
While pursuing the list of candidates who were interviewed by the Chairman and the Members, the most astonishing feature is that in more than 95 cases, Chairman and the Members have allotted similar marks to the candidates after interview which is impossible as all the Members and the Chairman were supposed to test the capability of the candidates in their individual capacities.
In some cases the interview marks are out of range of grade marks.
During the investigation of the case, this factor has emerged very clearly and there is a strong evidence in the case file.
The procedure for calling experts, paper setting and paper setters, examiners Markers etc.
All the appointments were terminated on the recommendations of the High Court on 27.9.2002.
There is some evidence on the file that expert s was were asked to be selective.
Perhaps, numberone companyld have polluted the entire system in a greater measure.
The statement of one of the accused Jagman Singh who later turned as an approver was recorded under Section 164 CrPC on 24.1.2002 and 24.4.2002.
were exclusively in the hands of the Chairman as reported by the Secretary, Punjab Service Commission and numbersuch record is available in the Commission, whereas such record can only be destroyed after a lapse of 5 years as per instructions of the PPSC.
For instance some selective candidates were helped by giving question papers one night before the date of examinations and if the candidates companyld number perform well in the written examination, the examiners were asked to give maximum marks to the favoured candidates, irrespective of the matter companytained in the answer sheets and the hand writing being number legible.
The favoured candidates have been given marks in the interview and the candidates companying in the way of favoured candidates have been given less marks in the interview to keep them way down in the merit list.
8421 of 2002 along with other companynected matters.
The interview marks were tailored to help the favoured and tainted candidates.
The procedure is such that the difference in pass marks can be easily companyered by interview marks.
This case relates to a period when one Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu in short, R.S. Sidhu was the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission hereinafter called the Commission from September 1996 to 21.3.2002.
14/2004, C.A. No.
After going through the answer sheets of the candidates, who were selected on the basis of examinations held for recruitment against the vacancies in the years 1999, 2000 and 2001, the sub committee submitted a report dated 30.5.2002 with the observation that, interpolations and cuttings were made in the marks awarded to some of the candidates and their marks were increased and that the assessment made by the examiners was far from fair.
His clandestine activities and misdeeds reached the pinnacle of disgrace, ignominy, dishonour, degradation and humiliation.
On 25.3.2002 an FIR was registered at Police Station, Mohali under section 7 read with section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in relation to the trap organized in which R.S. Sidhu was caught red handed accepting a bribe of Rs.
The selections, which are number based on the companypetitive examination, are based on pass marks percentage of basic degree interview marks .
5 lakhs.
The report submitted by the second sub committee was also approved by the Full Court.
The marks allotted for interview can easily companyer the gap of 8 marks between the candidates getting the lowest and highest base marks.
WITH C.A. No.
I companycur with the companyclusions and findings arrived at by him on all the issues except on the issue of propriety of hearing of the matter by the judges who were on the Committee , after the appellants gave clear companysent to the hearing of cases by the full bench even before the companymencement of the hearing of cases.
3422/2005, 3410/2005, 3409/2005, 3405 3408/2005, 3456 3459/2005, 3446 3447/2005, 3402/2005, 3449 3455/2005, 3463 3464/2005, 3460/2005, 3401/2005, 3445/2005, 3399/2005, 3404/2005, 3444/2005, 3441/2005, 3439/2005, 3428 3436/2005, 3440/2005, 3438/2005, 3442/2005, 3437/2005, 3403/2005, 3427/2005, 3461/2005, 3400/2005, 3477/2005, 3475/2005, W.P. C No.
I would therefore, like to write a separate judgment.
3423/2005, 3448/2005, 3472 3474/2005, 3489/2005 and 3491/2005 DALVEER BHANDARI, J. I had the benefit of reading the erudite judgment of my learned brother Justice Sinha.
These appeals emanate from a Full Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.
These appellants, being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Full Bench, have number approached this Court by filing these special leave petitions.
