Karnataka High Court
Sri M Ramachandra S/O Muniappa vs The Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd on 30 August, 2012
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B Adi
WP No.41962/2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI
WRIT PETITION NO.41962 OF 2011 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
SRI M RAMACHANDRA S/O MUNIAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
WORKING AS MANAGER-GRADE IV
MANAGEMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT,
HELICOPTER DIVISION,
HAL, BLORE & R/AT NO.11/2,
YELLUKUNTE VILLAGE, HSR SECTOR-III,
BOMMANAHALLI POST,
BANGALORE - 560 068 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD.
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR
HELICOPTER COMPLEX, HELICOPTER
DIVISION, HAL, VIMANAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 017
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER
HAL (HELICOPTER DIVISION)
VIMANAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 017
3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR) - HC
HAL (HELICOPTER DIVISION)
VIMANAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 017
4. SRI ALOKE BINOY TOPPO
WP No.41962/2011
2
FATHER"S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, MAJOR IN AGE,
WORKING AS SENIOR MANAGER (ME)
HELICOPTER DIVISION, HAL (HELICOPTER
DIVISION) VIMANAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 017
5. SRI ISWAR CHAND MITTAL
FATHER"S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, MAJOR IN AGE,
WORKING AS SENIOR MANAGER (STRL ASSY)
HELICOPTER DIVISION, HAL (HELICOPTER
DIVISION) VIMANAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 017
6. SRI RAVI B
FATHER"S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, MAJOR IN AGE,
WORKING AS SENIOR MANAGER (CIVIL H/C)
HELICOPTER DIVISION, HAL (HELICOPTER
DIVISION) VIMANAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 017
7. SRI SRINIVASAN G
FATHER"S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, MAJOR IN AGE,
WORKING AS SENIOR MANAGER (MS)
HELICOPTER DIVISION, HAL (HELICOPTER
DIVISION) VIMANAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 017
8. SRI PRAMOD KUMAR BARANWAL
FATHER"S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, MAJOR IN AGE,
WORKING AS SENIOR MANAGER (PE)
HELICOPTER DIVISION, HAL (HELICOPTER
DIVISION) VIMANAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 017
9. SRI JAYARAM NAIDU
FATHER"S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, MAJOR IN AGE,
WORKING AS SENIOR MANAGER (QA)
HELICOPTER DIVISION, HAL (HELICOPTER
WP No.41962/2011
3
DIVISION) VIMANAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 017
10. SRI BABU
FATHER"S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, MAJOR IN AGE,
WORKING AS SENIOR MANAGER (DLE)
HELICOPTER DIVISION, HAL (HELICOPTER
DIVISION) VIMANAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 017 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMDAS, SR. COUNSEL AND SMT.SNEHA NAGARA, ADV.
FOR M/S SUNDARASWAMY & RAMDAS, ADVS.)
---
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature
of certiorari quashing the personnel notification dt.27.9.11,
issued by the R3, vide Ann-C as the same is violative of
Articles 14, 19, & 21 of the Constitution of India, besides
violative of the rule of seniority cum merit and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day,
the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Petitioner, aggrieved by the non-selection / promotion to the post of Manager Grade-V in pursuance of Annexure-C dated 27.9.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent, is before this Court.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was promoted to Grade-IV and he became eligible to be promoted to Grade-V in terms of the procedure contemplated as per WP No.41962/2011 4 Annexure-A. There are two methods of promotions, one is the normal promotion and the other is the internal merit selection. Petitioner is concerned with normal promotion. For the purpose of normal promotions, the candidate should secure minimum or marks in PAR i.e. Performance Appraisal Report. The average PAR marks for the 3 years should also be 50 marks or above. Official should also secure minimum marks in online test and interview. Though the petitioner has secured minimum marks in both P.A.R. and online test but in interview he was required to secure 15 marks out of 25 but has been awarded only 7 marks, as such petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of managerial grade V. Though petitioner has secured 58% aggregate but for want of minimum marks in interview his case was not considered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, by applying the principle of minimum marks in the interview, it gives room for arbitrary exercise of power to knock out the meritorious candidate as the Interview Committee may award less than the minimum marks in the interview to eliminate a merit candidate. The method of fixing minimum WP No.41962/2011 5 marks in interview to select a candidate is not approved by the Apex Court. Such procedure is arbitrary and against principle of fairness, marks in viva voce should not become determinable factor.
4. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision reported in (1985) 4 SCC 417 in the matter of 'ASHOK KUMAR YADAV & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.' and submitted that the Apex Court, has observed that the viva voce test tended to become a determining factor in the selection process because, even if a candidate secured the highest marks in the written examination, he could be easily be knocked out of the race by awarding him the lowest marks in the viva voce test and correspondingly, a candidate who obtained the lowest marks in the written examination could be raised to the top most position in the merit list by an inordinately high marking in the viva voce test. If the arbitrariness in the interview is not eliminated, it may result in arbitrary approach in the matter of process of selection. The viva voce test may be accorded relatively greater weight, but in any event the marks WP No.41962/2011 6 allocated for the viva voce test cannot be higher as to eliminate the meritorious candidate. Such tendency becomes a determining factor in the process of selection and tilting the scales in favour of one candidate or other according to the marks awarded to him in the viva voce test. He further submitted that, instead of fixing minimum marks for viva voce, aggregate marks should be the criteria in the matter of selection.
5. He also relied on a decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 541 in the matter of 'P.K.RAMACHANDRA IYER & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.' and submitted that the Apex Court again in the said decision has reiterated the principle of arbitrary exercise of the power in awarding the lesser marks in an interview by fixing the minimum qualifying marks. Further, relied on another decision reported in AIR 1980 SC 2141 in the matter of 'DR.J.P.KULSHRESTHA & ORS. v. CHANCELLOR, ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY & ORS.' and submitted that the Apex Court, though did not find fault with the methodoloy of interview, however, found that if the marks obtained in the interview becomes determinable WP No.41962/2011 7 factor, it will sabotage the purity of proceedings and illegal means would be achieved by legal means. He also relied on another decision reported in (2006) 6 SCC 145 in the matter of 'HARIGOVIND YADAV v. REWA SIDHI GRAMIN BANK & ORS' and submitted that the Apex Court has deprecated the method of fixing minimum marks in the interview. But, for securing less than 15 marks in the interview, the petitioner could have been promoted to the post of Manager Grade-V, as such, the selection of respondent No.4 per se is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex Court.
6. On the other hand, Sri.Ramdas, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not called upon the procedure. No allegations are made against the members of the Committee nor has found fault with the interview proceedings. No malafides are alleged. The promotion circulars are issued from time to time. In so far as Grades I to IV are concerned, it is purely based on the interview and no test is conducted. But, since the post of Manager Grade V involves the greater WP No.41962/2011 8 responsibility, apart from interview, online test is conducted, in addition to the same one has to obtain minimum 50% marks in P.A.R.
7. Learned Senior counsel relied on Ex.R1 produced along with the statement of objections and submitted that, in order to ensure the movement of personnel from middle management to the senior managerial cadre, on the basis of performance, the mediocre are eliminated. He submitted that the process of selection from managerial Grade IV and V and above is purely on merit, as per the prescribed procedure by Circular dated 19.7.1989, that is on the basis of having minimum experience of 4 years in case of Engineering degree and 6 years in case of Diploma. In addition to that, the minimum marks in the written online test, PAR and interview is considered. The marks for API would be awarded as under:
"Total overall PAR marks for preceding 3 years x 50 highest possible overall marks in the appraisal system x 3."WP No.41962/2011 9
8. Minimum 50% marks P.A.R. for online test is fixed at 40% i.e. 10 marks out of 25 marks and 60% for the interview i.e. 15 marks out of 25 marks.
9. He also relied on the performance chart of all candidates who had appeared for the interview. There were several candidates who performed better in the online test and their PAR, however, they were not selected even though their aggregate marks were obtained.
10. Petitioner, even otherwise has obtained aggregate marks less than the others. Petitioner's aggregate is 58% whereas even with aggregate marks of 80% the candidates have not been selected. Petitioner cannot have any grievance for non-selection. He further submitted that, even if the petitioner had 15 marks in the interview, his aggregate would have been less than respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 has secured 72.17 marks whereas the petitioner has secured 58.33 marks. He did not dispute that the interview marks alone should not be the determining factor. But submitted that the interview is conducted by 10 expert WP No.41962/2011 10 members in different field. Even some of the candidates have secured higher marks in the interview, still they have not been selected, hence, no fault can be found in conduct of the interview.
11. Similar procedure is followed in all the cases of promotion from Grade-IV to Grade-V and above. The Committee of expert has taken into consideration suitability of the candidates by considering several aspect and based on the assessment of performance of the candidate, selection is made. Just because the petitioner has secured lowest marks in the interview, it is not a ground for interference in the interview process and more so when the selection is made to the Managerial Grade V post, which is a responsible post, and the petitioner's aggregate is also much less that the selected candidate.
12. In the light of the above submission, the point that arise for consideration is:
"Whether the selection process of managerial Grade-V calls for interference?"WP No.41962/2011 11
13. It is not disputed that the petitioner had appeared for interview and he has been awarded 7 marks in the interview, which is less than minimum. The only grievance of the petitioner is that, out of 25 marks, if he had been awarded 15 marks, based on seniority he would have been selected.
14. However, it is not disputed by the petitioner's counsel that there were several candidates who had come within the zone of consideration and all of them had appeared for the interview. In the interview, there were several candidates who had secured much higher aggregate marks than the petitioner, but they also had not been selected. The interview is conducted not by an individual or a Committee of 2-3 persons, but by 10 members Expert Committee.
15. The performance statement of individual candidates reveal that amongst all the candidates, the petitioner's aggregate marks is the lowest. He has secured 58.33 marks. WP No.41962/2011 12 The 4th respondent is the last candidate selected and has also secured 72.17 marks, which is admittedly higher than the marks obtained by the petitioner. Apart from the same, there were also candidates who had secured more than 80 marks, but they have not been selected.
16. Normally, this Court will not sit in judgment over the assessment made by the Committee of expert, as this Court cannot place itself in the place of Committee of Expert.
17. Apart from this, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner no doubt stipulates that the marks in the viva voce should not be the determining factor in the selection process, undoubtedly, that alone should not be the determining factor for selection process. In this case, said principle may not be required to be applied because though there is 15 marks prescribed for the interview, nevertheless the candidates who have secured more than 15 marks, have also not been selected. Even the last candidate selected has got 72% aggregate marks. The WP No.41962/2011 13 marks in the interview awarded to the petitioner would not have made any difference.
18. The chart produced by the learned Senior counsel for the respondents reveals that, amongst the candidates who faced the interview, the lowest aggregate marks is secured by the petitioner. If that is the case, I do not find that there is any error in the selection process nor same is made on the basis of performance in the interview. May be the petitioner is awarded less marks in the interview, but it is not the only sole ground for interference of the order at Annexure-C, much less when the performance is assessed by Committee of Expert consisting of 10 members.
19. Having regard to these circumstances, I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the selection process under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RV