M A I N   N E W S

High Court quashes selection of 2,800 Haryana JBT teachers 
Tribune News Service

Justice Kannan observed 123 candidates figured in both lists as per the state’s reply. “Such of those candidates whose marks have been reduced (in the interview) and still their names find a place shall also be entitled to be taken as selected and their appointment shall not be interfered with. They are 221 in number.” In all, marks of 956 candidates were increased, while marks of 1,950 were decreased”.

The judgment on 80 petitions by Vijay Kumar and other petitioners came a year after the special CBI court at New Delhi convicted then Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala, his son Ajay Chautala, two IAS officers, including Sanjiv Kumar, and 51 others on corruption charges in the selection case.

The selection process was initiated with the issuance of a notification in November 1999 for posting 3,206 candidates at primary education level in different districts. As a preliminary step, relative grading was carried out by assigning 70 per cent weightage to academic qualifications with 5 per cent each for higher qualifications and experience. Twenty per cent marks were for performance in the interview.

A total of 7,707 candidates were interviewed before the result was published in October 2000. But the selection was challenged by unsuccessful candidates; and a case was registered against Sanjiv Kumar, then holding additional charge of the Director, Primary Education.

The case took a twist when Sanjiv Kumar approached the Supreme Court, alleging he was pressurised by Om Prakash Chautala to replace the list of candidates with an alternative list containing a set of “15 award lists”. This, he claimed, was a fake list. After he refused to succumb to pressure, Sanjiv Kumar claimed, a false case was registered against him.

The CBI investigation also revealed the preparation of two lists. For clarity purposes, Justice Kannan dubbed the “15 award lists” filed by Sanjiv Kumar before the apex court as the “Supreme Court list”. The one that was ultimately published was termed as the “directorate list”.

The CBI, in its probe, found that the list which he claimed to be false, the Supreme Court list, was genuine. Though several contentions were raised in writ petitions, the entire focus at the time of arguments was on the fact that a state merit list prepared by the government was impermissible and against advertisement notification; and the selection was vitiated by fraud and nepotism.

After hearing arguments, Justice Kannan asserted district-wise selection discarding state merit list was untenable and constitutionally impermissible. Justice Kannan added “all such candidates who were not in the Supreme Court list, but who gained selection in the directorate list after obtaining additional marks shall go”.

Justice Kannan added: “Persons who have been appointed already, but whose names do not get ticked against the fresh list now ordered to be prepared, shall be served with orders of termination. No recoveries shall be made for the salary already paid…. They shall not be subject to any disqualification for consideration to future appointments. The state may take a policy decision to relax the age for those candidates who are now directed to be removed through this order for filling any fresh vacancies in the next immediate selection that may be undertaken”. 

How they did it 13 years ago

* All the selected candidates were rewarded more than 17 marks in the interview. A uniform reduction of marks was made in case of all other candidates

* They were given less than six marks so that the actual number of candidates picked equalled the number of vacancies notified

* The marks of candidates in the range of 6 to 16 were reduced to less than six so that a candidate with 12 or 13 marks, for example, would not overtake a candidate awarded more than 17 marks in the interview.