2008 (2) TMI 820 - SC - Indian Laws

What was the procedure (method and manner of selection) prescribed by the Administrative committee for filling the posts advertised on 28.5.2004? - Held that - To test the correctness of his contention we asked the learned counsel for the High Court to explain why the 2001-2002 selections were done without applying minimum marks for interview. He was not in a position to explain why the 2001-2002 selections were made without applying any minimum marks for the interviews if the resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002 had really provided that there should be a minimum marks for the interview. The only explanation was that it was due to some oversight or mistake. The said explanation is neither satisfactory nor valid. Whether the list prepared by the Interview Committee and approved by the Administrative committee suffered from any error irregularity or illegality? - Held that - First list requested an arithmetical correction that is scaling down of the written examination marks to three fourth of what was secured by them with reference to a maximum of 100 marks so that the ratio of 3 1 could be maintained in respect of the marks for written examination and interviews. Whether the procedure adopted by the Full Court in preparing the fresh selection list by applying the requirement of minimum marks for interview also is legal and valid ? - Held that - The Division Bench of the High Court while considering the validity of the second list has completely missed this aspect of the matter. It has proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the resolution dated 30.11.2004 of the Administrative Committee prescribed minimum marks for interviews. Consequently it erroneously held that the Administrative Committee had acted contrary to its own resolution dated 30.11.2004 in not excluding candidates who had not secured the minimum marks in the interview and that the Full Court had merely corrected the wrong action of the Administrative Committee by drawing up the revised merit list by applying marks for interview also. The decision of the Division Bench therefore cannot be sustained.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Procedure for selection prescribed by the Administrative Committee.
2. Legality of the list prepared by the Interview Committee and approved by the Administrative Committee.
3. Validity of the procedure adopted by the Full Court in preparing a fresh selection list by applying minimum marks for the interview.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Procedure for selection prescribed by the Administrative Committee:
The selection process for the posts of District & Session Judges (Grade II) was governed by the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Rules 1958, which did not prescribe any procedure for selection but only qualifications for appointment. The Administrative Committee of the Andhra Pradesh High Court decided the method and manner of selection, resolving on 30.11.2004 to conduct a written examination for 75 marks and an oral examination for 25 marks, with minimum qualifying marks for OC, BC, SC, and ST candidates as prescribed earlier. The earlier prescription referred to the selection process of 2001-2002, which required minimum qualifying marks only for the written examination and not for the interview.

2. Legality of the list prepared by the Interview Committee and approved by the Administrative Committee:
The Interview Committee prepared a merit list based on the aggregate marks of the written examination (out of 100) and interview (out of 25), which was approved by the Administrative Committee. However, this list contained an error as it did not scale down the written examination marks to 75, thereby altering the prescribed ratio between written examination and interview marks from 3:1 to 4:1. The Supreme Court found that the first list required an arithmetical correction by scaling down the written examination marks to maintain the 3:1 ratio.

3. Validity of the procedure adopted by the Full Court in preparing a fresh selection list by applying minimum marks for the interview:
The Full Court, after considering objections, appointed a Sub-Committee to prepare a fresh merit list. The Sub-Committee scaled down the written examination marks to 75 and applied minimum qualifying marks for the interview, which resulted in a revised merit list. The Supreme Court held that introducing minimum marks for the interview after the selection process was completed was impermissible as it amounted to changing the rules of the game after it was played. The Court emphasized that the previous procedure did not prescribe minimum marks for the interview, and the Full Court's action in revising the merit list was not warranted.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and directed the Andhra Pradesh High Court to redraw the merit list without applying any minimum marks for the interview. The merit list should be prepared by adding the marks secured in the written examination and interview, with the written examination marks scaled down to 75. The appointments made pursuant to the interim order were not to be disturbed, and the rank and seniority of the selected candidates would depend on the fresh selection list. The writ petitions and the SLP by Thirumala Devi were dismissed.