2010 (5) TMI 928 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenge the marks prescribed for viva-voce test were excessive and contrary to the law - recruitment for the appointment of Civil Judges (Junior Division) - unsuccessful in merit - Division Bench of the High Court non-suited the Petitioner on the ground that he moved the Court after taking a chance for being selected on the basis of the provision which he was seeking to challenge - Whether the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules? - HELD THAT - The marks prescribed for viva voce test/interview are excessive and selection made in accordance with the criteria like the one specified in Rule 14 read with Appendix-C and para (vi) of the advertisement issued by the Commission has been considered by this Court in several cases including those upon which reliance has been placed by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Although, no straitjacket formula has been judicially evolved for determining whether the prescription of particular percentage of marks for viva voce test/interview introduces an element of arbitrariness in the process of selection or gives unbridled power to the recruiting authority/agency to select less meritorious candidates, by and large, the courts have not found any Constitutional infirmity in prescribing of higher percentage of marks for viva voce test/interview for recruitment to judicial services, administrative services and the like. We are of considered view, that earmarking of 200 marks for viva voce test as against 850 marks for written examination does not violate the doctrine of equality embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the Petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The Petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the Judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J. and K. 1995 (2) TMI 441 - SUPREME COURT , Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 2007 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT , Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. 2008 (3) TMI 667 - SUPREME COURT , Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam 2009 (1) TMI 853 - SUPREME COURT . In the result, the special leave petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the marks allocation for viva voce test.
2. Petitioner's locus standi and estoppel.
3. Excessiveness of the marks prescribed for viva voce test.
4. Petitioner's challenge timing and conduct.
5. Precedents and legal principles related to viva voce marks allocation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of the Marks Allocation for Viva Voce Test:
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Appendix-C of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955, arguing that the 200 marks prescribed for the viva voce test were excessive and contrary to established legal precedents. The Supreme Court considered Rule 14 and Appendix-C, which specified the syllabus and marks distribution for the competitive examination.

2. Petitioner's Locus Standi and Estoppel:
The State Government objected to the petitioner's locus standi, asserting that he was estopped from questioning the marks prescribed for the viva voce test after having participated in the selection process. The High Court agreed, holding that the petitioner was aware of the criteria when he applied and only raised grievances after being unsuccessful. The Supreme Court upheld this view, referencing the principle that a candidate cannot challenge the selection process after participating in it and failing to secure a position.

3. Excessiveness of the Marks Prescribed for Viva Voce Test:
The petitioner argued that the 200 marks for the viva voce test were excessive and violated the principles laid down in cases like Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana. The Supreme Court, however, noted that no straitjacket formula exists for determining the appropriate percentage of marks for viva voce tests. The Court cited several precedents, including Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, which upheld higher percentages of marks for viva voce tests in judicial and administrative services. The Court concluded that the 200 marks for the viva voce test did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

4. Petitioner's Challenge Timing and Conduct:
The High Court and the Supreme Court both emphasized that the petitioner only challenged the selection process after being unsuccessful. This conduct disentitled him from questioning the selection criteria. The Supreme Court referenced multiple judgments, including Madan Lal v. State of J. and K., to support the view that candidates cannot challenge selection processes post-facto based on their unsuccessful outcomes.

5. Precedents and Legal Principles Related to Viva Voce Marks Allocation:
The Supreme Court discussed various precedents, including Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin, which supported the allocation of significant marks for viva voce tests in certain services. The Court reiterated that the weightage given to viva voce tests must be determined by experts and can vary based on the service's requirements. The Court found no constitutional infirmity in the prescribed marks for the viva voce test in this case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, agreeing with the High Court that the petitioner, by participating in the selection process and only challenging it after being unsuccessful, was not entitled to any relief. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the marks allocation for the viva voce test and found no violation of the equality principles under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The application for intervention/impleadment was also disposed of as infructuous.