9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tical 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. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in regard to recruitment of District Judges are thereafter placed before the Full Court for its consideration under SO 2.13. 5. The Administrative committee by its resolution dated 30.11.2004 decided the method and manner of selection. It resolved to conduct the written examination for the candidates for 75 marks and oral examination for 25 marks. It also resolved that the minimum qualifying marks for the OC, BC, SC and ST candidates shall be as prescribed earlier. As per its direction, the written examination was held on 30.1.2005 and 1026 candidates appeared for the examination. The results were declared on 24.2.2005 and 83 candidates were successful in the written examination. Due to the pendency of some litigation, interviews could not be held immediately. A committee of five Judges was constituted for interviewing the candidates and interviews were held in March 2006. Thereafter, the marks obtained by the 83 candidates in the written examination and in the interview were aggregated and a consolidated merit list of the 83 candidates was prepared in the order of merit on the basis of the aggregate marks. It contained (i) the registration number, (ii) the names of the candidat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tten examination marks of 75 and interview marks of 25 as per the resolution dated 30.11.2004, instead of being evaluated with reference to written examination marks of 100 and interview of 25, thereby varying the prescribed ratio between written examination marks and interview marks from 3:1 to 4:1. Therefore, it scaled down the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination with reference to a total of 100, in proportion to a maximum marks of 75. By adding the interview marks of 25, the total marks obtained by the candidates with reference to a total of 100 (as against 125) were recalculated. The subcommittee was also of the view that apart from applying the minimum marks for the written examination for determining the eligibility of the candidates to appear in the interview the same cut off percentage should be applied for interview marks, and those who fail to secure such minimum marks in the interview should be considered as having failed. As the minimum percentage for passing the written examination was 50% for open category, 40% for backward classes and 35% for SC and ST, only those candidates who secured the minimum of 12.5 marks (open category), 10 marks (BC c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection to the High Court to redraw the selection list without adopting minimum qualifying marks for the interview. The said writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court by a common judgment dated 30.10.2006. Civil Appeal arising from SLP [C] No.18330/2006 10. This appeal is by K. Manjusri whose name was found in the first list. She contended that the minimum marks for interview not having been prescribed either under the rules or by the resolution dated 30.11.2004 by the Administrative committee, the action of the Full Court altering the norms for selection by introducing minimum marks for interview, after completion of the selection process, would amount to changing the rules of the game, not only after the game was started but after the game was played. 11. Several applications for impleadment filed by the selected/non-selected candidates have been ordered to be heard along with the main matter. IA No.2 was filed by A. Hariharanatha Sarma, N. Thukaramji, V.B. Nirmala Geethamba and BSV Prakash Kumar whose names were found in both the first and second lists. IA Nos.3 and 5 are filed by G. Anupama Chakravarthy and P. Venkata Jyothirmai who were at Sl.Nos.5 and 1 in the first l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be filled by a Scheduled Caste-male candidates, by transferring the post to SC (General). He claims that the post left unfilled earmarked form SC Woman should have been treated as SC General vacancy and he ought to have been selected for that post. Questions for consideration 15. On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for consideration : (i) What was the procedure (method and manner of selection) prescribed by the Administrative committee for filling the posts advertised on 28.5.2004? (ii) Whether the list prepared by the Interview Committee and approved by the Administrative committee suffered from any error, irregularity or illegality? (iii) 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 ? Re : Question (i) 16. The Rules did not prescribe any procedure for selection. When the posts were advertised, the only criterion for selection that was mentioned was that the selection will be by holding a written examination followed by an interview. The manner of holding written examinations and interviews, the marks for written examination a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequently amended/corrected by Administrative committee at its meeting held on 21.2.2002 (approved by Full Court on 6.3.2002) as follows : Considered and resolved to correct the typographical error occurred in the resolution of the Administrative Committee Meeting held on 24..7.2001 mentioning 50 marks, 40 marks and 35 marks instead of 50 percent, 40 percent and 35 percent i.e. the minimum qualifying marks for Open Category is 50 percent, for Backward classes (B.Cs) 40 percent and Scheduled Tribes (S.Ts) 35 percent in the written examination. 18. Let us try to analyse and find out the combined effect of the resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002. The resolution dated 24.7.2001 prescribed the following marks for the written examination and the interview: (a) The marks for written examination was 75 marks and the minimum qualifying marks was 50 marks for open category, 40 marks for backward classes and 35 marks for Scheduled Tribes; (b) The marks prescribed for interview was 25 marks and the minimum qualifying marks for interview was 16.67 marks for open category, 13.33 marks for Backward Classes, and 11.67 marks for Scheduled Tribes (by applying the ratio that was prescribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommittee consisting of five Judges (the Chief Justice and four other Judges) all along intended, understood and proceeded on the basis with reference to the current selection that minimum percentage was applicable only to written examination and not for interviews. This is evident from the manner in which interviews were conducted and merit list and selection list were prepared by the Interview Committee and approved by the Administrative Committee. This shows that the Interview Committee conducted the interviews on 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 20th, 24th and 31st of March, 2006 on the understanding that there were no minimum marks for interviews, that the marks awarded by them in the interview will not by itself have the effect of excluding or ousting any candidate from being selected, and that marks awarded by them in the interviews will merely be added to the written examination marks, for preparation of the merit list and selection. We are referring to this aspect, as the manner of conducting interviews and awarding marks in interviews, by the five members of the interviewing committee would have been markedly different if they had to proceed on the basis that there were minim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se merit of the candidates were prepared with reference to a total of 125 marks, comprising 100 for the written examination and 25 for the interview. But the Administrative Committee had clearly resolved on 30.11.2004 that evaluation of performance should be with reference to a maximum marks of 75 for written examination and 25 for interview. The written examination was however, conducted with reference to a question paper set for a maximum of 100 marks. The interviews, of course, were held with reference to maximum of 25 marks. Therefore, it was necessary to scale down the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination (with reference to a maximum of 100 marks) proportionately to arrive at the marks with reference to a maximum of 75 marks so that the ratio of maximum marks in written examination and interview would be 3:1. If the maximum marks for the written examination was 100 and for the interview was 25, then the ratio between the marks for written examination and interview would be 4:1, thereby altering the prescribed marks, after the selection process had begun. We are, therefore, of the view that the first list requested an arithmetical correction, that is, sca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In regard to the present selection, the Administrative Committee merely adopted the previous procedure in vogue. The previous procedure as stated above was to apply minimum m arks only for written examination and not for the oral examination. We have referred to the proper interpretation of the earlier resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002 and held that what was adopted on 30.11.2004 was only minimum marks for written examination and not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. We are fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to three of them P. K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India 1984 (2) SCC 141, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India 1985 (3) SCC 721, and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa 1987 (4) SCC 646. 25. In Ramachandra Iyer (supra), this Court was considering the validity of a selection process under the ICAR Rules, 1977 which provided fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 27 candidates who passed the written examination. Some names were omitted from the list of 27 candidates who passed the written examination. It was found that the Selection Committee had moderated the written examination marks by an addition of 2% for all the candidates, as a result of which some candidates who did not get through the written examination, became eligible for viva voce and came into the list. Secondly, the Selection Committee prescribed for selection, a minimum aggregate of 600 marks in the written examination and viva voce which was not provided in the Rules and that resulted in some of the names in the list of 27 being omitted. This Court held neither was permissible. Dealing with the prescription of minimum 600 marks in the aggregate this Court observed : There is no power reserved under Rule 18 of the Rules for the High Court to fix its own minimum marks in order to include candidates in the final list. It is stated in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition 4363 of 1985 that the Selection Committee has inherent power to select candidates who according to it are suitable for appointment by prescribing the minimum marks which a candidate sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing awaited. That is unacceptable and impermissible. 29. The resolution dated 30.11.2004 merely adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore, extending the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interviews, in the selection process is impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee want to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the selection committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conducted by the Administrative Committee or the interviews held by the Selection Committee. The assessment of performance in the written test by the candidates was not disturbed. The assessment of performance in the interview by the Selection Committee was not disturbed. The Full Court however, introduced a new requirement as to minimum marks in the interview by an interpretative process which is not warranted and which is at variance with the interpretation adopted while implementing the current selection process and the earlier selections. As the Full Court approved the resolution dated 30.11.2004 of the Administrative Committee and also decided to retain the entire process of selection consisting of written examination and interviews it could not have introduced a new requirement of minimum marks in interviews, which had the effect of eliminating candidates, who would otherwise be eligible and suitable for selection. Therefore, we hold that the action of Full Court in revising the merit list by adopting a minimum percentage of marks for interviews was impermissible. 31. The Division Bench of the High Court while considering the validity of the second list, has completely miss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
