Selection of 1,983 PTIs: Vigilance Bureau registers FIR against former Haryana SSC chairman, members
A single bench of the Punjab and Haryana high court had on September 11, 2012, set aside the 2010 selections of PTIs on account of changes made in the selection process.Updated: Jul 02, 2020 15:43 IST
The vigilance bureau has booked the former chairperson and members of Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) for allegedly misusing their positions and tinkering with the selection criteria to help certain candidates get selected as physical training instructors (PTIs).
The recruitment of 1,983 PTIs took place in 2010 during the Congress rule. On the basis of a communication from the Haryana advocate general, BR Mahajan, a first information report (FIR) was registered on June 30 by the vigilance bureau (VB) at Panchkula under IPC sections 166, 193, 466, 468, 471 and 120-B and provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. The FIR does not have any names.
The sections invoked in the FIR pertained to punishment for false evidence in a judicial proceeding, public servant disobeying law, forgery of court record or public register, forgery for the purpose of cheating and criminal misconduct by a public servant.
A single bench of the Punjab and Haryana high court had on September 11, 2012, set aside the 2010 selections of PTIs on account of changes made in the selection process. An HC division bench had upheld the decision of the single bench.
The Supreme Court on April 8 too upheld the HC decision. The content mentioned in the FIR registered by VB has its foundation in the Supreme Court judgment.
An apex court bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha had said that HSSCs decision of June 30, 2008, to cancel the written examination, the July 11, 2008 decision to call candidates eight times the number of vacancies on minimum percentage of marks for interviews and the decision of July 31, 2008, to call all the eligible candidates for interviews were arbitrary.
These decisions were taken without any reason to change the selection criterion published in 2006 which have the effect of downgrading the merit.
The top court also said that since commission was a multi-member body, all decisions pertaining to mode of selection and criteria were to be taken by the commission itself, there being no rules or resolution delegating the said power to chairman or any other member.
“The decision of not holding written examination, to screen on the basis of eight times of vacancies and percentage of marks and to call all eligible candidates, were taken by the chairman himself, and cannot be said to be decisions of the commission,’’ the SC said.