Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Dr. B. Madhusoodana Kurup vs Indian Council For Agricultural ... on 30 July, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH Original Application No. 383 of 2008 This, the 30th day of July, 2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J) Hon'ble Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member Hon'ble Ms. K. Noorjehan, Administrative Member Dr. B. Madhusoodana Kurup, S/o Late V. Balakrisha Pillai, Professor, School of Industrial Fisheries, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Fine Arts Avenue, Cochin City. .......Applicant. (By Advocate Mr. V. Sajith Kumar) Versus 1. Indian Council for Agricultural Research Represented by its Director General, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board represented by its Secretary, Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan-1, PUSA, New Delhi-110012. 3. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi. 4. Dr. Mohan Joseph Modayil, Member, Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board, Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan-1, PUSA, New Delhi-110012. 5. Mr. G. Syda Rao, Director, CMFRI, Cochin. ... Respondents. (By Advocate Mr. P. Jacob Varghese, Sr. Counsel and M/s Varghese & Jacob (R1,2 & 4) O R D E R
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J).
The Indian Council of Agricultural Research by Memorandum dated 07.07.2008 (Annexure A-1) had appointed Dr. G. Syda Rao, the fifth respondent in the above OA as the Director, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), Cochin, on tenure basis for a period of five years. These proceedings are under challenge.
2. The applicant is working as Professor (School for Industrial Fisheries), CUSAT. He is advisor to the Minister (Fisheries and Registration), Government of Kerala. The appointment conferred on Syda Rao is challenged by him on various grounds, including irregularity in constitution of the Selection Committee, their incompetence and also possible mala fides. According to the applicant, as of now the best candidates available have been sidelined and the appointment had gone to a person already earmarked. All the steps and proceedings, therefore, require to be retraced so as to ensure that a top post in the ICAR goes to a person who is qualified, efficient and most eligible. The anguish shown reflected in the passionate arguments of the counsel, and we would examine the contentions with the seriousness it deserves.
3. The Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB), New Delhi had by Annexure A-2 notified recruitment to several scientific posts under the different Institutes of the ICAR. One such post is Director, CMFRI, Cochin. Essential qualifications required for the incumbent had been notified. There was also reference to desirable qualifications expected of. The closing date of applications was 02.04.2008. It was an unreserved post. The brochure supplied along with the application intended for information of the candidates spoke of further details, viz regarding the constitution of the Screening Committee, the process of preliminary appraisals, guidelines, which were to be followed by the Screening Committee and short listing of candidates to be called for interview. Candidates scoring the prescribed minimum percentage marks alone would have become eligible for being interviewed. The final selection to the post concerned was to be made on the basis of performance at the time of interview.
4. During the course of selection process, two Original Applications had come to be filed, one by a person working as Principal Scientist in ICAR (OA 356/2008) and the other by a person, who was Registrar of Cochin University of Science and Technology (OA 537/2008). The Constitution of the Board for selection had been challenged. There was also a prayer that since some of the candidates, who were screened and found eligible (not the 5th respondent) for partaking the interview, basically were unqualified, they were to be deleted from the list. The methodology of selection based solely on the interview also was challenged, as, according to the applicants, the rules do not permit such a procedure. However, a Division Bench, consisting of one of us (Mr. K.B.S. Rajan) had dismissed the applications, finding that there was no substance in the contentions raised.
5. In the present O.A, the relief prayed for is for quashing the appointment order and for a declaration that selection is invalid because of participation of fourth respondent as a Selection Committee Member. Some other members also, according to the applicant, were not sufficiently qualified, or independent enough to act as Members of the Committee. It had been further alleged that selection based on interview without giving weight to the qualifications and attributes of the candidates offended the principles of equality. Merit of the respective candidates on the basis of their attainment as per records, should also have been a yardstick for the selection, delinking process of preliminary and final selection was not warranted. Therefore, a de novo selection as prescribed by the Rules and bye laws was to be ordered for finding out the best candidate among the applicants.
6. The Original Application had been heard by a Bench at some length. Thereafter, an order had been passed on 01.05.2009 wherein following the earlier order in OA 356/2008 (and connected case), the contentions raised about the incompetence of the selection body and the methodology adopted by them in the matter of selection have been repelled. But, however, the Bench had noticed that a contention raised in the application was about the irregularity of allotment of hundred percent marks for the interview. The learned Members had observed that in view of the decision of the Madras Bench, which had come to be passed almost on similar facts, wherein an opinion had been expressed that reservation of 25% marks for the interview would have been irregular, propriety demanded of them that the present OA be heard and disposed by a Full Bench. In OA 289/2004 and OA 291/2004, the Madras Bench had held that the ICAR was not justified, in completing a selection process without giving full information with reference to the procedure to be followed in the selection. Supply of yardsticks which were likely to be employed in the process should have been made to the participants. Therefore, the selection was set aside.
7. The present OA was thus heard by the Full Bench in the above background.
8. So as to give an opportunity for the applicant to address upon the issues, as desired by him, the Bench had framed two questions of law, which were to be examined and pronounced upon by the Larger Bench. Questions were framed as following:
(a) Whether for the post of Director CMFRI, the awarding of full marks for interview would be held legal.
(b) Whether each member of the Selection Committee should have awarded marks independently instead of arriving at a collective decision, without allotting individual marks.
On the orders of the Chairman, thereupon a Full Bench had been constituted.
9. Before us, Mr. V. Sajith Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submits that the questions as framed essentially have to be examined in the backdrop of the other relevant facts. Therefore, an opportunity to advert to the primary facts which have been pleaded in the OA was sought for. Mr. P. Jacob Verghese, Senior Counsel, appearing on instructions, on behalf of the respondents, had been fair in not opposing the submissions as made by Mr. Sajith Kumar. As one of us (Justice M. Ramachandran) had been freshly nominated by the Honble Chairman, and as the Member had not heard the matter earlier, and since the judgment was to be comprehensive on all issues raised, a full hearing was accepted as the course to be followed.
10. We may, therefore, examine afresh the contentions that have been raised and de novo, although they had been already adverted to by the Division Bench, of course, as might be necessary for the present adjudication. In fact, the points agitated, (excepting the issues framed for consideration by a Larger Bench) had been previously subjected to an examination by the Division Bench when it rendered the judgment in OA 356/2008 and connected case. A detailed discussion would be warranted only if the Full Bench deem it fit to record altogether different findings.
11. Mr. Sajith Kumar thereupon had referred to the factual averments made in the Original Application and submitted as following.
12. The applicant is a highly meritorious candidate working as a Professor in an Institution under the Government of Kerala. He has excellent academic records and is attached to the present institution from 1983 and had served as Junior Assistant Professor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Reader. He is a doctorial fellow and was promoted as Professor in April, 1998. He had numerous research publications to his credit and is recipient of Bharat Jyothi Award. A number of scholars had secured post graduate doctorate under his guidance. It is an ongoing programme. His authority in the relevant fields is unquestionable.
13. Applicant had responded to the Notification to the post of Director, and had been cleared by the Screening Committee. As far as his knowledge goes, he had secured the maximum marks among the aspirants. But thereafter he is placed in a common pool and his candidature is adjudged only on the basis of an interview. This is not permissible as per the bye laws of the ICAR. No satisfactory reason is given for following such a weird procedure, and one could smell rat, for unceremonious elimination of a meritorious candidate.
14. It is submitted that in view of clause 28 of bye laws clauses 38 to 48, as existing under the old bye laws, were required to be followed till such time new recruitment rules were framed. The interview Board was to consist of Chairman, ASRB, Director General of the ICAR or his representative and 2 to 3 advisors. However, the fourth respondent, a Member of the ASRB, was included in the interview Board in violation of the rules. The rule position provided that the Selection Committee Members were to be drawn from outside the ICAR stream. The constitution of the Committee was, therefore, irregular. One person who had not even done the Ph.D had been included as Member of the Selection Committee. This was against basic tenets of a fair selection.
15. Particular reference is made to the presence of the fourth respondent, Dr. Mohan Joseph Modayil, as according to the learned counsel as relying on the pleadings, he was a tainted person. Formerly, he was Director of CMFRI and he could not have been permitted to be associated with the Selection. He was still connected with the ICAR and had bias, particularly with selfish interests. The applicant had, according to him, brought the attention of the higher ups about the irregularity of the proposal, but the selection proceedings went on unhindered. He was, therefore, constrained to partake in the selection. In due course, he had been subjected to interview on 03.07.2008. It is asserted that the interview was practically stage managed. There was no adequate time set apart for assessing the real worth of a person, who was being interviewed. In spite of his offer to make available his credentials, the suggestion had been sidelined. He further submits that the fifth respondent who was selected was a close associate of the 4th respondent, who was far lesser qualified and notoriously, was known as unable to make his mark in a previous selection held three years back for a still lower position. But, however, flouting all norms and without applying mind to the special attributes of the applicant, which, in fact, the incumbent was to possess, selection has gone to a person who is not qualified enough or experienced to hold the position.
16. Mr. Sajith Kumar thereafter also had addressed us on the two issues that had been framed for being answered by the Full Bench. According to him, the selection, in fact, solely rested on the basis of interview. This amounted to a situation where the interviewing body had grabbed power to give hundred percent marks, as ultimately the things have now turned out. With the authority of decided cases, it is submitted that the above could not be condoned or approved as a happy situation. The Courts repeatedly had indicted that assigning even thirty to fifty percent marks for interview, would have been irregular.
17. Further submission was that when different attributes were to be examined by the expert selectors drawn from different sources, and who were supposed to have specialized fields, it would have been appropriate that marks scored as per the assessment of the individual experts required to be shown separately on the records. In a case where the process was under
examination by a third party or a court of law to examine whether there was a fair selection carried out and whether the person, who was adjudged as winner in the selection could have been undoubtedly the most qualified and eligible person for conferment of the appointment, such records would have had rendered immense assistance. In support of his general submissions, he has cited several decisions, to which we may advert to later. In essence, the argument was that it was a case where excessive and arbitrary powers had been given to a Selection Committee to assess a person as they wished, de hors the qualifications or attainments of candidates. The track records they possessed which would have been the ultimate yardstick stood relegated to background. All these cumulative circumstances, according to the counsel, contributed to vitiate the process of selection. It is asserted that the candidate selected is far lower in merits and attributes compared to others who had occasion to respond to the notification.
18. Mr.Jacob Verghese, Senior Counsel, however, submitted that the selection procedure had been adopted as authorized by the competent authority. He adverts to the circumstances that the method decided to be employed for selection was well known and transparent. It was not as if the applicant was taken by surprise or kept in the dark which circumstance had resulted in the decision of the Madras Bench. He further points out that the parameters that were employed for selection in the selection concerned have been equally applied in respect of the other more than thirty posts that had been notified, and no complaints had come from any quarter that the procedure adopted suffered from irregularity. It is pointed out that an order passed by this Tribunal in OA 356/2008 has covered almost all the technical contentions that have been raised by the applicant and since it has attained finality, that will be a guideline for the Full Bench to follow. It is further asserted that the manner, in which the applicant has attempted to focus the attention of the Tribunal to the methodology employed in the interview, is haphazard and perhaps misleading. It was not a case where hundred percent marks were to be assigned for interview. Selection was to consist of two separate steps, which was authorized to be followed by the highest body of ICAR and which was being adopted over a period of years. Even the Madras Bench decision did not disapprove of the methods which were laid down for a similar selection.
19. Counsel submits that the instructions to the candidates very well disclosed as to the manner in which the process of selection was to be conducted. The first step was a Notification giving the parameters of selection. Candidates were to respond supplying all relevant credentials and highlighting that they had eligibility to participate in the selection to the post advertised. A Screening Committee had been entrusted with the duty to scrutinize the applications. A verification process was very much working at that point of time. On set pattern, for every attributes, marks were awarded again in a most transparent, and notified manner. A candidate who secured fifty percent marks alone was to come to the second stage of the selection, viz, the interview. It is submitted that about thirty applications had forth come, and ten candidates were found as having sufficient qualification/experience set for the selection, entitling them to participate in the interview. Seven of them had participated in the interview.
20. Counsel submits that the brochures containing all the relevant details of the candidates had been with the Members of the Selection Committee. As pre-notified, the candidates were required to make a presentation the quality of which had to be specially assessed by the Interviewing Committee. Ultimately, the person who secured the highest marks was recommended for selection. Everyone of these details and procedure had been supplied before hand. The candidates were aware and were to be conscious of what would have been expected of them. The applicant had partaken in the selection. But when there were persons of better capabilities, skills and adaptability for shouldering the duties expected of from a Director, as assessed by the Committee, such a candidate had been selected. The applicant could not have contended for a position that since on his estimation he was the best candidate, he should have been selected. That he could not tolerate a rejection was no reason for mud slinging. These in short were the submissions made by the respondents. Of course, on the issue of constitution of the Selection Committee and the alleged bias harboured by the members, he submits that the arguments are immature, as had been already found in the earlier decided cases.
21. The fifth respondent who was the selected candidate had not presented himself, or taken any effort, to highlight his claims or justify his selection. We do not think, he was expected to jump into the fray, as the burden to prove that procedural formalities, including the responsibility for the final selection, exclusively was on the official respondent.
22. Paragraphs 15 to 36 of the reference order dated 01.05.2009 deal with the contentions raised by the applicant vis-a-vis the methodology employed for selection. We are of the considered view that the findings arrived at there, which was again on the basis of the earlier decision in OA 356/2008 do not require to be varied. In respect of the authority of the Selection Committee to sit in judgment over the candidature of the applicants, reliance had been placed on clause 28, which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in bye laws, the provisions of the existing bye laws 38 to 42 relating to recruitment and appointment to various posts under the Council were to be continued to be in force till such time as the recruitment rules for various categories of posts in the Council as provided in Rule 73 of the ICAR Rules, are framed and enforced. The argument is that for constituting Interview Boards of Directors, under clause 39, such a body should be constituted consisting of Chairman, ASRB, as the Chairman, Director General or his representative plus two or three advisors, to assist as Members. It is contended that a Member of ASRB was present in the Interview Board and this is a vitiating circumstance. Further, the advisors from outside were insisted for obvious reasons and especially to ensure that there is fairness in the selection. But the advisors who had functioned as the Member continued to be associated with the ICAR, its committees and institutes, it may be that they had retired from the service of ICAR but the ties with the Institute was strong, and was likely to operate as a vitiating factor. This is a circumstance which goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, impartiality expected of a Selection Board could not have been there.
23. However, the submissions as above have been controverted by the Senior Standing Counsel. Indisputably, by proceeding dated 27.03.2006, with the approval of the President of the ICAR (Honble Minister of Agriculture) guidelines have been prescribed which were being followed ever thereafter. The further contention was that clause 28 could be understood as only transitory provisions. Clause 24 alone could have had application as this has been approved by the governing body. The said provision conferred on the Chairman of the ICAR with full discretion in laying down the norms for constituting the Selection Board. It was in exercise of this power that proceedings were issued on 27.03.2006.
24. Mr. Jacob Verghese also submits that the self same objections raised here about the constitution of the Selection Committee had already been repelled by order dated 24.11.2008 by a Bench in OA 356/2008. The advisors could never be considered as coming from the ICAR system. Earlier, they had held offices under the ICAR but after retirement it would be idle to contend that they are still within the fold of the organization, disabling them from discharging duties of selection independently assigned to them. They were experts in their fields and taking notice of the skill required for arriving at a correct decision as the post notified was that of a high functionary, their services have been utilized and this could not have been considered in any way irregular.
25. As against the objection of the presence of the 4th respondent, the OA contains only vague allegations. The apprehension of the applicant was that as recently retired Director of CMFRI, he had still connections with the Institute. Some of his projects had misfired and as an officer directly responsible for loss sustained, he required the assistance of a trusted person as otherwise skeletons in the cupboard would have appeared for the general public to view. In any case, he had intention to see that this did not happen. Fifth respondent was his favorite.
26. However, such allegations cannot be taken in its face value and it has not been possible for the applicant to throw light to any of the alleged misdeeds, as have been incorporated in the Original Application. Of course, counsel submits that as an outsider, the applicant had limitations, to come up with records. But it does not appear to be sufficient justification for jumping into a conclusion that the 4th respondent had applied his weight, in any disagreeable manner in the matter of a selection held by a Committee of which he was only a Member. Thus, we have to hold that the contention regarding the illegality of constitution of the Selection Board has not been substantiated at all, or for that reason he had been put to prejudice.
27. Now we may advert to the contentions raised about the objection of grant of awarding of full marks for the interview and whether such a procedure could be styled as illegal as also whether there was a duty expected of from the selection committee members to award marks independently instead of allotting collective marks.
28. In fact, on these points, our task has been made easy, in view of the presence of authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the subject. We find that the applicant was not well advised, in taking up such contentions. The situations available are explicitly transparent. Further, the respondents had even at the inception of the selection disclosed the procedure in unambiguous terms. It is to be noticed that the post of Director was only one of the notified post, and the method of selection was uniform, as far as the rest of the posts were concerned. Such selections have not been questioned from any quarter, and this also, according to us, is a most relevant circumstance.
29. The applicant is not probably justified in contending that it is an instance where the respondents had set apart 100% marks for interview. The wisdom of assigning a higher mark for interview certainly on certain occasions might have given unfair advantage to preferred participants in a selection, who might have secured low marks in a written test. A dishonest interview could jack up a candidate, without leaving traces of any irregularity, as giving of marks is within prerogative of the interviewer. It was probably in these contexts that the principles have been churned out as to what should have been the proper method of selection and how much percentage of marks could be set apart for interview. From the number of decisions cited, the circumstance appears that it was mostly confined to admission to educational institutions. The rule appears to be that if the method of selection was to consist of a written test followed by an interview, reservation of comparatively a higher percentage of marks for interview was likely to spell out arbitrariness at least in some cases.
30. But that might not be the case here. A Bench mark had been prescribed as among competing personnel, on the basis of their basic records for a preliminary assessment as to whether they were entitled to compete in the selection. It would have been something like possession of pre-qualification before submitting bids. Once the Bench mark had been satisfied, as per the terms of selection notified, the candidates were on a level play field because the selection depended only on the assessment made by the Interviewing Board. The person who secured the highest position, would have been invited for conferment of the post. That is what has happened here. Therefore, the question whether 100% of the marks or full marks were set apart for the interview was really not the issue here, nor the moot point. This is because this is an instance where the person who scored the highest, got the selection.
31. Mr. Sajith Kumar had invited our attention to a few decisions mainly rendered by the Supreme Court. In Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (1985 (4) SCC 417), adverting to Paragraphs 25 and 26, it is urged that the Court was consistent in taking the view that allocation of as high a percentage of marks as 33.3% towards viva voce test was beyond a reasonable proportion. This rendered the selection process of candidates arbitrary. But it is interesting to point out that the decision had also referred to a contra point, namely, that it is well settled that "in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview test may be the only way subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirement being satisfied." We also would notice that the claims as urged in the petition there had been allowed by the Supreme Court principally taking into account the peculiar facts of the case. The above decision appears to be irrelevant while deciding the present issue.
32. Reference had been made to Ajay Hasia etc. Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors. (a Five Bench judgment of the Supreme Court) reported as AIR 1981 SC 487. However, later decisions have indicated that principles as highlighted in the above judgment, which pertains to admission to an educational institution, can have little application in the case of appointment to higher posts in service. A person in his younger years will be yet in the process of acquiring skills of expression and personality. It will be too early, therefore, to adjudge his candidature by a process of interview. Therefore, the above decision practically does not help the applicant here. Counsel had also adverted to the decision of Dr. J.P. Kulshrestha and Ors. Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University and Ors. (1980 STPL (LE) 10157 SC). The Court had suggested that it would have been indeed advisable that marks obtained by the candidates and the like should be available for scrutiny when the appointment was under challenge. However, there is no dispute about the position that the fifth respondent had secured the highest position, after the interview, and it may not be necessary for us to further delve into a discussion in the above case, as the documents in respect of the selection are available for examination.
33. Next the counsel had adverted to Satpal and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1995 Supp. (1) SCC 206). However, the principles that have been highlighted by the applicant in the present case, do not appear to be available there. The Court had indicated that when a Selection Committee interviewed, 400 to 600 candidates on a single day, in an ongoing process, such a weeding out becomes a mockery and farce. This being the principle adopted to adjudge the interview as arbitrary, this case has little relation to the facts of the present case.
34. In Atul Khullar and Ors. Vs. State of J&K and Ors. (1986 STPL (LE) 12642 SC), the issue was about the justifiability of interview for admission to the Medical College. It has to be held that the principles to be applied are widely different than while a public authority making appointment to a superior post. The observations in the judgment, therefore, cannot be relevant as to the case agitated by Mr. Madhusoodana Kurup, applicant here. The case of Dr. Triloki Nath Singh Vs. Dr. Bhagwan din Misra and Ors.(1990 STPL (LE) 15809 SC) had been also adverted to. When the selection of Reader in `Linguistics was being carried out, the Vice Chancellor had nominated expert in the subject of Hindi Language and Literature. This was found to be irregular/inadequate. In the present OA, we have already noticed that the persons who have been entrusted with the duty of selection had high academic qualification and rich experience in the field and subject. As such, it may not be necessary for us to advert to the above decision as only a facet of the issue if at all was discussed there.
35. Mr. Sajith Kumar had also adverted to All India State Bank Officers' Federation and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1997 (9) SCC 151) where it had been held that interview marks of 25% may workout hardship. But the observation in the very same decision show that there cannot be any hard and fast rule possible to be prescribed, as facts of each case has to be independently looked into as to whether methodology adopted was reasonable or not. Further, it could have been an interview, after a qualifying test involving awarding of marks. What is suggested was that the interview marks should not be so high so as to make a situation arbitrary and illusive, the result of the exercise is capable of mischief of a meritorious candidate to be overthrown unceremoniously. We also note that in Inder Parkash Gupta Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. (2004 (6) SCC 786) when 100% marks were set apart for interview the Supreme Court had observed that there cannot be any error in such a prescription if a fair procedure is seen to have been followed.
36. At this point, we may also advert to a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court (02)(3)KLT 729. Selection was being held to the post of legal advisor in the Vigilance Department. The method contemplated was only interview. Unsuccessful candidates had questioned the efficacy of the method adopted. But observing that in respect of posts of similar nature, the interview alone would have been the best method for assessing the candidature, the writ petition had been rejected. It is not, therefore, uncommon for the appointing authorities to devise the procedure which may lead to identification of the best talents. It can be by a method of interview, it can be even by extending an invitation, as it is well known that for a variety of reasons persons with talents are reluctant to make applications for top jobs. The interest of the Institution would be better served if they are invited to accept the superior positions. A bonafide method for securing the best candidate can seldom be found fault with.
37. In respect of the proposition whether separate marks are to be given as concerning the traits which was expected to be there, for a Director, who is head of a National Institute, learned counsel submitted that excepting to place it as a proposition, there was no authoritative decision, within his knowledge. The materials, produced in the case indicate that the relevant parameters were such as depth of knowledge, mind set, communication, skills, international exposure, vision, high standards of value, knowledge of legislation, institution building, etc. In fact, the Interviewing Board was expected to come to a unanimous conclusion in respect of each candidate. It is averred that brochures containing the details of the candidates have been supplied in advance to the Committee for them to acclimatize with the special and general attainments of the participants. It is practically conceded that what has been arrived at is a unanimous decision. We are of the considered view that so long as there is no statutory guidelines which requires any evaluation as suggested by the applicant, it may not be possible for us to hold that the selection was bad for such reasons. We had, in fact, come across observations made by the Supreme Court, which may indicate that such an argument does not hold water. In Kiran Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors. (AIR 2000 SC 3299), after scanning the entire law on the subject, it had been held that when the traits as prescribed by the guidelines drawn up by the Commission are innumerous and to be kept in mind in evaluating a candidate for his suitability and fitness for being appointed to the post, it may not be necessary that marks are to be allocated individually in respect of each of the qualifications so prescribed. The Court had rendered an opinion that an overall evaluation rather than awarding of marks for each item will be more productive.
38. Mr. Jacob Verghese, had brought to our attention a few decisions which we find, offer better assistance and materials for us to conclude that there has not been any arbitrariness in the methodology adopted. Adverting to Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan (1981 (4) SCC 159), it is pointed out that the Supreme Court had indicated that in respect of mature personalities, an interview might be the best and only way to pick the best person. Court had also observed that unless found as arbitrary, it is for the Administration to choose the method that is best suited to pick up the most eligible person. In fact, the Court may not be in a position to sit in judgment over the wisdom employed. The senior counsel had also relied on All India State Bank Officers Federation and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. ( cited supra), where more or less such a method of selection was found as acceptable. Referring to Osmania University Vs. Abdul Rayees Khan and Anr. (1997 (3) SCC 124), counsel pointed out that the Court should refrain from interfering in the academic selection made if it is done after following the prescribed procedure. The objectivity depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court had also indicated that as far as the superior posts were concerned, awarding of formal marks itself was not necessary. In C.P. Kalra Vs. Air India (1994 Supp (1) SCC 454), the counsel points out that observation made showed that there cannot be any hard and fast rule for allotment of marks for selection of Station Superintendent. The award of 40% marks was not found as excessive. However, we do not think the other observations made there are relevant.
39. In Anzar Ahmad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1994 (1) SCC
150), the Supreme Court had pointed out that selection for employment and methodology adopted for admission to Educational Institutions require to be assessed with different yardsticks alone. A weightage for viva-voce procedure as far as public employment is concerned, could not have been objectionable; only fairness had to be ensured.
40. A scan made as above of the authorities available, therefore, according to us, compel us to come to conclusion that there may not be justification for alleging that there was arbitrariness in the selection process employed. While dealing with the specific issues formulated for consideration, we answer the reference by holding that it would have been possible to rest a selection on an interview alone, as far as superior posts were concerned. The Supreme Court had made the position clear as early as in 1981 in Leela Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan (1981 (4) SCC 159). Since the applicant has not been able to place any materials for substantiating the contentions that in a selection process each member should have awarded marks independently instead of arriving at a collective decision, we note that the later trend of the decisions appears to be that awarding of marks itself might not be necessary, when the members of interview consider the rival claims and come to a unanimous assessment. We agree with the submissions made by the senior counsel that it is not necessary for the Interviewing Board to allot separate marks in respect of different factors or traits, while considering the suitability of a candidate. An assessment about the total suitability of the candidate would have been sufficient and acceptable.
41. As about the merits of the rest of the contentions, we have already recorded our opinion that the selection process was neither irregular, or there has been any import of mala fides. The net result of the aforesaid discussions is that the O.A. is found as without any justifiable merits. We dismiss the application but there will be no order as to costs.
(K. Noorjehan) (K.B.S. Rajan) ( M. Ramachandran) Member (A) Member (J) Vice Chairman (J) SRD