2014 (5) TMI 862 - HC - Indian Laws

Appointment to the candidate on the basis of merit, in the suitability test - Interpretation of circular - Administrative Tribunal, by its judgment has quashed the order dated 10.4.2006, selecting Ms. Suman Devi as Inspector, Central Excise, under the sports quota and thereafter has directed the respondents to offer appointment to the candidate on the basis of merit, in the suitability tesHeld that - The tribunal completely misconstrued the circular of the department and clearly misdirected itself while examining the issue raised before it. Awarding of 100 marks to Suman Devi was viewed with suspicion and an observation was made that the department had pre-decided to select Suman Devi and for this purpose she was awarded 100 marks. This observation of the tribunal was wholly incorrect and was clearly an outcome of surmises. Since under the policy a candidate with international experience and was in form during the recent past, was entitled to grant of preference, as such awarding higher marks to her over and above the marks awarded to Gyan Prakash Singh who merely had participated at Inter-University level, more so many years all i.e. 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 was clearly valid and justified. Awarding of marks in field tests and its consideration for determining merit was valid and the view to the contrary taken by the tribunal is wholly unsustainable in law. The tribunal also failed to consider that similar marks were given by department to other candidate also. The Tribunal had clearly misconstrued and misread the departmental circular dated 9.3.1987 and 4.5.1995 and the scheme for recruitment itself, which amounted to manifest error of law. The finding of the tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained - judgment and order of the tribunal dated 17.9.2008 cannot be sustained and the same is, therefore, set aside - Decided in favour of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the selection process under the sports quota.
2. Interpretation and application of departmental circulars regarding sports quota recruitment.
3. Determination of eligibility and suitability criteria for the sports quota.
4. Role of proficiency in sports versus performance in written tests and interviews in the selection process.
5. Tribunal's interpretation of the recruitment scheme and its adherence to legal standards.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Selection Process Under the Sports Quota:
The petitioners challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision that quashed the selection of Ms. Suman Devi as Inspector, Central Excise under the sports quota. The Tribunal directed that the appointment should be based on merit in the suitability test, not just sports proficiency. The High Court reviewed the selection process, which involved a field test, written test, and interview. The department had selected Ms. Suman Devi based on her outstanding sports achievements and performance in the selection process.

2. Interpretation and Application of Departmental Circulars:
The Tribunal referenced circulars dated 4.8.1980, 9.3.1987, 12.11.1987, 30.9.1988, and 4.5.1995. These circulars outlined the eligibility and selection criteria for sports quota appointments. The Tribunal concluded that the selection process involved two parts: eligibility (sports proficiency) and suitability (written test and interview). However, the High Court found that the Tribunal misconstrued the circulars, particularly the 9.3.1987 and 4.5.1995 circulars, which stated that the written test was purely qualifying and that sports proficiency should be the primary consideration.

3. Determination of Eligibility and Suitability Criteria:
The Tribunal's view was that sports proficiency determined eligibility, while written test and interview determined suitability. The High Court disagreed, emphasizing that the primary objective was to incentivize sports within the department. The High Court clarified that the written test was qualifying in nature, and the selection should prioritize sports achievements as outlined in the circulars.

4. Role of Proficiency in Sports Versus Performance in Written Tests and Interviews:
The High Court noted that Ms. Suman Devi had an outstanding sports record, including international achievements, while the applicant Gyan Prakash Singh had lesser achievements. The department awarded higher marks to Ms. Suman Devi based on her sports proficiency and current form, which was consistent with the circulars. The Tribunal's direction to exclude field test marks and base selection solely on written test and interview marks was found to be contrary to the circulars and the intended recruitment scheme.

5. Tribunal's Interpretation of the Recruitment Scheme and Its Adherence to Legal Standards:
The High Court found that the Tribunal's interpretation of the recruitment scheme was flawed and constituted a manifest error of law. The Tribunal's approach rendered the sports proficiency criteria irrelevant and treated candidates with different levels of sports achievements equally, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court emphasized that the department's selection criteria, which considered sports proficiency as a significant factor, were valid and justified.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, reaffirming that Ms. Suman Devi's selection was made in accordance with the law. The Original Application challenging her selection was rejected, and the writ petition was allowed. The High Court emphasized the importance of sports proficiency in the selection process under the sports quota and upheld the department's adherence to the relevant circulars.

← Previous Next →