Kerala High Court
Athul Antony A vs High Court Of Kerala on 6 February, 2024
1
WPC 21048/22
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 21048 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
ATHUL ANTONY A. AGED 26 YEARS SON OF JOHN SHERRY
A.A., RESIDING AT ANANDCHERRY HOUSE, A B ANTONY
MASTER LANE, MUNDAMVELI, MUNDAMVELI P.O., ERNAKULAM
- 682 507.
BY ADVS. REKHA VASUDEVAN P.PRATHYUSHA ROJIT
ZACHARIAH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR
GENERAL, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, HIGH COURT P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 682 031.
2 THE REGISTRAR (RECRUITMENT AND COMPUTERIZATION) HIGH
COURT COMPLEX, HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM, KERALA -
682 031.
3 SARATH S.S. AGED 30 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER, RESIDING AT S.S.SADANAM,
DHANUVACHAPURAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695503.
ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED
19/08/2022 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2022 IN WPC NO.21048/2022
BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED P.M.SANEER SHAJIN S.HAMEED
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
WPC 21048/22
C.R
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 6th day of February 2024) An unsuccessful candidate for the post of Office Attendant of this court has filed this Writ petition, challenging the notification prescribing a minimum of 35% marks for qualifying in the interview to be included in the rank list.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner is suffering from moderate mental retardation with intellectual disability of 50% and having IQ of
56. Applications were invited pursuant to Ext.P3 notification to the post of office attendant through direct recruitment. The mode of selection as per the notification is two-fold (i) a written test and (ii) an interview. The total mark from the written test is 100, and for an interview, it is 10. The minimum mark required to be included in the rank list is fixed at 35% in the interview. Under Ext.Nos.P2 and P3, the petitioner applied to the post under the quota reserved for persons with 3 WPC 21048/22 disability. The petitioner attended the written test and became successful. When the provisional list of candidates who are eligible for interview was published as per Ext.P8, 1% of the total vacancies reserved for persons with intellectual disability was not included. Therefore, the petitioner filed Ext.P9 representation before the 1st respondent, and by Ext.P10 addendum notification, a supplementary list of persons with disabilities (mentally disabled and persons with multiple disabilities) was published. The petitioner was included in the said list and was called for an interview. The Petitioner appeared for the interview on 22.3.2022. After the conclusion of the interview, Ext.P12 final rank list was published and the petitioner was not included in the said list. The 3rd respondent alone was included and appointed as per Ext.P18. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the following prayers:4 WPC 21048/22
"i. Declare Rule 14 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules as unconstitutional to the extent it fails to include the reservation for Physically Handicapped persons.
ii. Quash Exhibit P3 notification to the extent to the prescription of 35% as the minimum mark for qualifying the interview and to be included in Exhibit P12 ranked list by issuance of writ of certiorari or another appropriate writ, order or direction;
iii. Quash Exhibit P12 ranked list to the extent to which it includes Sri Sarath S.S. and excludes the petitioner in the supplementary list of "Mentally Disabled and Persons with Multiple Disabilities" by issuance of writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction;
iii.a. Quash Exhibit P18 appointment order dated 03.01.2023 by the issuance of the writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the extent to which it wrongfully includes the 3rd respondent and excludes the petitioner herein;
iv. Declare that the petitioner is fully eligible to be included in Exhibit P12 ranked list at the appropriate rank to be assigned on the basis of combined marks in the written test and the interview;
v. Direct the 2nd respondent to redraw Exhibit P12 ranked list with respect to the Supplementary list of "Mentally Disabled and Persons with Multiple Disability" on the basis of the combined marks in the written test and the interview, by issuance of writ of mandamus, or other writ, order or direction;
vi. Declare that there should be relaxed standard for selection of candidates belonging to the "Intellectually Disabled" category.
vii. Such other reliefs that the Honourable Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case;"5 WPC 21048/22
3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, denying the averments in the Writ Petition. It is averred that in the notification, clause 8 states explicitly that selection will be based on the marks of the written test and, 10 marks is fixed for the interview and the minimum mark required to be included in the rank list will be 35% in the interview. The petitioner became successful in the written test, and he was eligible to be called for interview. The shortlist was prepared in compliance with the Rule of reservation prescribed in part II of Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (KSSR), Kerala High Court Service Rules, 2007 (for short 'the Rules, 2007') and Kerala High Court Service (Method of Recruitment Rules 2009) (for short 'the Recruitment Rules, 2009'). The shortlist contained the main list and supplementary list of reservation categories, including 3% reservation for persons with benchmark disability in Visual impairment, hearing impairment, and locomotor 6 WPC 21048/22 disability. Later, Ext.P10 addendum notification was issued, including 1% for the mentally disabled and persons with multiple disabilities, ensuring 4% reservation to those with disabilities. The addendum notification was published, lowering the marks of the candidates obtained in the written test to the extent necessary, and the disability and the percentage of disability for the above categories were considered to be the same as mentioned in G.O.(P) No.19/2020/SJD dated 25.8,2020. As the petitioner was included in Ext.P10 notification, he was called for the interview. The petitioner scored only 3 marks in the interview, and since he did not achieve the minimum of 35% marks, he was excluded from the rank list. Differently, abled persons are interviewed to assess individually whether they are in a position to discharge their duties satisfactorily. All the persons in the supplementary list were interviewed with the same criteria and not with the persons who do not have the disability. 7 WPC 21048/22
4. As per Rule 16 of the Recruitment Rules, 2009, the marks awarded in the interview shall be added to the marks obtained in the written and/or skill tests, and the rank list shall be prepared. As per clause 8 of the Notification, the minimum required for an interview is 35%. The petitioner did not obtain the minimum marks, so he was not considered for the final rank list. The marks obtained in the written test are not only the determining factor but also the marks for the interview. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
5. A counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent also. The main contention raised in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this Writ Petition, as he has participated in the whole selection process, accepting all the conditions in the notification. After he has been unsuccessful, he cannot challenge the rank list and the notification. The petitioner was not qualified to be included in the shortlist since he had not obtained the minimum 35% marks in the interview. At the same time, this respondent has 8 WPC 21048/22 obtained a minimum mark in the interview and, hence, is included in the final rank list. The rank list is prepared considering the reservation categories included as per KSSR and the mandate of sections 2(r) and 34 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short 'the Disabilities Act, 2016').
6. The petitioner files a reply affidavit to the counter affidavits filed by the respondents wherein the submission was that the interview was done keeping 35% marks minimum for all the candidates in the main list and the supplementary list of mentally disabled persons. When the petitioner has intellectual disability, the same cannot tested against the person who is of average intellect and it is against the principle of 'unequals cannot be treated equally'. Rule 16 of the Recruitment Rules, 2009 prescribes that the marks of the written test and interview have to be taken together while preparing the final rank list and, ignoring the said rule, Ext.P12 Ranked List for the post of Office Attendant is issued. 9 WPC 21048/22
7. A rejoinder is filed by the respondents, with a memo to accept the selection scheme for the post of office attendant in the High Court, approved by the Chief Justice is produced.
8. As directed by this court, through a memo, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have produced the disability certificate submitted by the 3rd respondent along with the application.
9. Heard counsel Smt.Rekha Vasudevan for the petitioner, Shri.V. A Muhammed for respondents Nos.1 and 2, and Shri.P. M. Saneer for the 3rd respondent.
10. Through this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P3 notification to the extent of fixing 35% marks as minimum marks for inclusion in the final rank list. Ext.P3 notification is issued on 19.12.2019 to the post of office attendant in the High Court of Kerala. Clause 8 of the said notification, deals with the mode of selection, which reads as follows:
8. Mode of Selection: i) Selection will be based on Written Test and Interview. The written test will be of 10 WPC 21048/22 Objective Type. The Objective Test with 75 minutes duration to be answered in OMR Answer Sheet will have 4 topics (Total 100 marks) as follows: (a) General Knowledge & Current affairs 50 marks, (b) Numerical ability - 20 marks, (c) Mental ability - 15 marks and (d) General English - 15 marks. Each question will carry 1 mark. For every Incorrect answer, ¼ mark will be deducted. The medium of the test will be bilingual in English & Malayalam.
ii) Interview: The interview is for 10 marks. The minimum marks for being included in the ranked list will be 35% in the interview.
iii) The number of candidates to be included in the Short List of candidates to be called for the interview will be decided by the High Court having regard to the number of vacancies notified, the number of candidates appointed from the previous list and chances of occurrence of vacancies.
11. The petitioner's application was accepted, and he was issued with an admission ticket for written examination. He participated in the written exam and became successful. Therefore, he was included in the supplementary list for persons with disabilities (Mentally Disabled and Persons with Multiple Disabilities). He was called for the interview, and he attended it. However, he did not find a place 11 WPC 21048/22 in the Ext.P12 rank list as he did not have a minimum 35 % mark in the interview. The 3rd respondent had marks above the minimum percentage of marks in the interview, and hence, he was included in the Ext.P12 rank list under the head of Mentally Disabled Persons with Multiple Disabilities.
12. One of the questions that arise for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the prescription in Ext.P3, fixing the minimum mark of 35 % for the interview to be included in the final rank list, is justifiable or not. The Recruitment Rules, 2009, clauses Nos.6 and 7 read as follows:
"6. The Registrar General or any other Officer of the High Court, as may be directed by the Chief Justice, shall be in charge of the selection process.
7. The syllabus of the examination, the maximum marks for the written test, skill test, and interview, and the minimum marks required to be secured by a candidate to make him eligible for inclusion in the ranked list shall be as prescribed in the scheme approved by the Chief Justice from time to time."
Rule 7 deals with the syllabus of the examination, maximum marks for the written test, skill test and interview, and the 12 WPC 21048/22 minimum marks required to become eligible for inclusion in the rank list. For this, a scheme is to be approved by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Along with the rejoinder of respondents Nos.1 and 2, the selection scheme for the post of office attendant as approved by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice is produced.
13. The Selection Scheme for the Post of Office Attendant in the High Court is extracted below:
1. The selection will be based on written test and Interview.
2. The written test will be an Objective Test to be answered in the OMR Answer Sheet.
(1) Objective Test: The Objective Test with 75 minutes duration consists of 4 Sections with marks shown against each (Total 100 marks) as follows:
(a) General Knowledge & Current affairs - 50 marks,
(b) Numerical ability -20 marks,
(c) Mental ability-15 marks
(d) General English - 15 marks.
(ii) The number of questions will be 100. Each question will carry 1 mark. For every incorrect answer, ¼ mark will be deducted. The question paper will be in four series (A, B, C & D) 13 WPC 21048/22
3. The interview is for 10 Marks. The minimum marks for being included in the ranked list will be 35% in the interview.
*[Approved by the Chief Justice in File No. REC3- 95662/2019 dated 19.12.2019.] Thus, it can be seen that the prescription for the minimum of 35% of the marks for the interview is approved by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as per the approved scheme and it is based on this scheme, that the cut of mark of 35% is included in Ext.P3 notification. With open eyes, the petitioner submitted the application for the post of office attendant. He was well aware when he submitted his application, as per Ext.P4, that there is a need for a minimum of 35% marks to be included in the final rank list if he is successful in the written examination.
14. It is to be noted that as per Rule 15 of the Recruitment Rules, 2009, the interview shall be conducted by a Judge or an Officer or Officers of the High Court or any other qualified person nominated by the Chief Justice for assessing the suitability of the candidate for the category to which the 14 WPC 21048/22 selection is made. The interviewer has complete discretion to grant marks, taking into consideration the ability of the person if he is appointed to the said post. The minimum marks given to the candidates in the supplementary list of mentally disabled and persons with disabilities cannot be said to be on par with the minimum marks awarded for the general and the other reservation categories. For the persons who are included in this list, the 1% disability category is separately considered.
15. Rule 16 of the Recruitment Rules, 2009 only says that marks awarded at the interview shall be added to the marks awarded to the candidates in the written examination and skill test, and the ranked list shall be prepared of all eligible candidates based on the total marks awarded. This Rule has to be read along with clause 8 of Ext.P3 notification and cannot be in isolation. If a particular candidate obtains 35% of marks in the interview, then only he qualifies to be included in the rank list after adding the marks of both the written examination and the interview. The cut-off mark of 35% is fixed by the 15 WPC 21048/22 Hon'ble the Chief Justice based on the scheme approved and in tune with Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules 2009. It is the prerogative of the Hon'ble Chief Justice to fix the minimum marks required for inclusion in the rank list. Therefore, there is no illegality in fixing 35% as the minimum mark for inclusion in the final rank list.
16. The counsel for the petitioner relied on judgments of the Apex court in Sree Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Others (1987 KHC 1120), Shivanandan T.C v. High Court of Kerala (2023 (5) KHC 347), Ramesh Kumar v.
High Court of Delhi and another (2010 KHC 4072), Bishnu Biswas v. Union of India and others (2014 KHC 4218), Razia K.I v. University of Kerala, Tvm and others [2022 (2) KHC 623], Union of India v. Uzair Imran [2023 KHC Online 6908] and Smitha Chacko (Dr.) v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (6) KHC 1] and contended that the prescription of minimum marks to be secured at the interview is illegal and without authority. 16 WPC 21048/22
17. The counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Siraj K.H. v. High Court of Kerala and others (2006 KHC 595). The counsel for the 3rd respondent relied on the Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of High Court of Delhi (2018 KHC 2874) and also Saji K.A. v. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady and others (2013 KHC 783).
18. The issue that was raised in Sivanandan's case cited (supra) was whether the decision taken by the Administrative Committee of the High Court to prescribe cut-off marks for viva voce examination after the conduct of viva voce is proper or not. The Apex Court held that the decision of the Administrative Committee prescribing cut-off marks for the viva voce examination after the conduct of the viva voce examination is improper and that the Administrative Committee cannot depart from the expected course of preparing the merit list contrary to the Rules. Main Paragraphs of the above decision are extracted below: 17 WPC 21048/22
"51. Under the unamended 1961 Rules, the High Court was expected to draw up the merit list of selected candidates based on the aggregate marks secured by the candidates in the written examination and the viva voce, without requiring a minimum cut - off for the viva voce. Thus, the decision of the Administrative Committee to depart from the expected course of preparing the merit list of the selected candidates is contrary to the unamended 1961 Rules. It is also important to highlight that the requirement of a minimum cutoff for the viva voce was introduced after the viva voce was conducted. It is manifest that the petitioners had no notice that such a requirement would be introduced for the viva voce examination. We are of the opinion that the decision of High Court is unfair to the petitioners and amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power.
52. The High Court's decision also fails to satisfy the test of consistency and predictability as it contravenes the established practice. The High Court did not impose the requirement of a minimum cut - off for the viva voce for the selections to the post of District and Sessions Judges for 2013 and 2014. Although the High Court's justification, when analyzed on its own terms, is compelling, it is not grounded in legality. The High Court's decision to apply a minimum cut - off for the viva voce frustrated the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioners. Since the decision of the High Court is legally untenable and fails on the touchstone of fairness, consistency, and predictability, we hold that such a course of action is arbitrary and violative of Art.14."18 WPC 21048/22
19. In Shri Durgacharan Misra's case cited (supra), the rules did not prescribe minimum qualifying marks for the viva voce test. A prescription of minimum marks cannot be done during the viva voce test. Therefore, it was held that the decision to prescribe minimum marks was bad. The relevant paragraph thereof is quoted herein below:
"16.xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxx. It cannot prescribe additional requirements for selection either as to eligibility or as to suitability. The decision of the Commission to prescribe the minimum marks to be secured at the viva voce test would, therefore, be illegal and without authority."
20. In Ramesh Kumar's case (supra), the court taking into consideration of Durgacharan Misra's case cited (supra) has held that, in the absence of any enabling provision for fixation of minimum marks in the interview would amount to amending the Rule 3, and held that, in the absence of any contrary provision in the relevant Rules, competent authorities 19 WPC 21048/22 can fix the minimum mark in the written test as well as in the interview but held on the facts and circumstance of that case, the Delhi High Court should not have prescribed the minimum qualifying marks for the interview.
The relevant paragraph Nos.11 and 17 thereof, are extracted below:
11. In Shri Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Others, AIR 1987 SC 2267, this Court considered the Orissa Judicial Service Rules which did not provide for prescribing the minimum cut - off marks in interview for the purpose of selection. This Court held that in absence of the enabling provision for fixation of minimum marks in interview would amount to amending the rules itself.
While deciding the said case, the court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments in B. S. Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 1981 SC 561; P. K. Ramachandra Iyer and Others v Union of India and Others, AIR 1984 SC 541; and Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1985 SC 1351, wherein it had been held that there was no "inherent jurisdiction" of the Selection Committee / Authority to lay down such norms for selection in addition to the procedure prescribed by the Rules. Selection is to be made giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and if such power i.e. "inherent jurisdiction" is claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary implication for the obvious reason that such deviation from the rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm.
12. xxxxx xxxxxx
13. xxxxx xxxxxx 20 WPC 21048/22
14. xxxxx xxxxxx
15. xxxxx xxxxxx
16. xxxxx xxxxxx
17. In pursuance of those directions, the Delhi High Court offered the appointment to such candidates. Selection to the post involved herein has not been completed in any subsequent years to the selection process under challenge. Therefore, in the instant case, in absence of any statutory requirement of securing minimum marks in interview, the High Court ought to have followed the same principle. In such a fact - situation, the question of acquiescence would not arise."
21. In Uzair Imran's case cited (supra), the Apex Court held that the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement inviting applications are at variance with statutorily prescribed qualifications, then it is settled law that the latter would prevail. It reads as follows:
11. xxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxxx. Law is well - settled that if qualifications mentioned in an advertisement inviting applications are at variance with statutorily prescribed qualifications, it is the latter that would prevail. Profitable reference in this connection may be made to the decisions of this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, 21 WPC 21048/22 2006 (9) SCC 507 and Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018 (3) SCC 55.
22. In Bishnu Biswas case cited (supra) also, the Apex Court has considered various decisions and observed thus:
"15. The appropriate allocation of marks for interview, where selection is to be made by written test as well as by interview, would depend upon the nature of post and no straight - jacket formula can be laid down. Further there is a distinction while considering the case of employment and of admission for an academic course. The Courts have repeatedly emphasised that for the purpose of admission in an education institution, the allocation of interview marks would not be very high but for the purpose of employment, allocation of marks for interview would depend upon the nature of post."
23. In Razia's as well as Smitha's case cited (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that a candidate is not precluded from challenging the selection for the reason that he/she has participated in the interview and failed in it when the challenge is against the selection is on the ground of procedure adopted was illegal, the candidate is not precluded. 22 WPC 21048/22
24. In Taniya Malik's case cited (supra), the Apex Court has relied on several judgments, including Siraj K.H.'s (supra) case, and considered the issue when a particular aggregate is prescribed for eligibility; a person must meet the criteria without relaxation. It was also held that when petitioners have undertaken the examination with the stipulation of minimum cut-off marks in written and oral examination and have failed, they cannot turn around and are estopped to contend to the contrary.
The relevant portion of Taniya Malik's (supra) is extracted hereunder:
19. Even otherwise, the petitioners have undertaken the exam with the stipulation of minimum cut-off marks in written and oral examination, and then, having failed, they cannot turn around and are estopped to contend to the contrary. This Court in K. Siraj, AIR 2006 SC 2339, paras 73, 75 and 76 (supra) has observed that when the candidates participated in the interview with the knowledge that for selection they have to clear the prescribed minimum pass marks, on being unsuccessful in interview, could not turn around and challenge that the prescription of minimum marks was improper.
xxxxxxxx 23 WPC 21048/22
20. With regard to question as to rounding off of the marks, in our opinion, when a particular aggregate is prescribed for eligibility, a person must meet the criteria without relaxation. It is not permissible to enhance the marks by rounding off method to make up the minimum aggregate."
25. In the decision reported in Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State (UT of J&K), (2023 SCC online SC 344) the Supreme Court has considered the issue of whether having participated in the interview process with no demur or protest, the same cannot be challenged subsequently simply because the candidate's personal evaluation or his performance was higher than the marks award by the panel.
The Apex Court has held as follows:
"66. Thus, the inexorable conclusion that can be drawn is that it is not within the domain of the Courts, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a Selection Committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene.
67. Thus, Courts while exercising the power of judicial review cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role to examine whether 24 WPC 21048/22 the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the viva- voce are excessive and not corresponding to their performance in such test. xxxxx xxxxxx
68. xxxxx xxxxxx
69. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence. xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
86. This Court has upheld the legitimacy of conducting interviews as a part of a selection process, even where marks earmarked for the same has been found to be prima- facie excessive, vide Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of 25 WPC 21048/22 Tamil Nadu, (1971) 1 SCC 38; Miss Nishi Maghu v. State of J & K, (1980) 4 SCC 95.
87. This Court in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159 : AIR 1981 SC 1777 made the following pertinent observations as to the importance of a viva-voce or interview in a selection process:
"It is now well recognised that while a written examination assesses a candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability, an interview test is valuable to assess a candidate's overall intellectual and personal qualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantage over the interview test there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a candidate's initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness, in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. Some of these qualities may be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by an interview test, much depending on the Constitution of the interview Board."
88. The criteria for evaluation of a candidate's performance in an interview may be diverse and some of it may be subjective. However, having submitted to the interview process with no demur or protest, the same cannot be challenged subsequently simply because the candidate's personal evaluation of his performance was higher than the marks awarded by the panel. xxxxxxxxxxx 26 WPC 21048/22
26. The petitioner has also a case that the disability certificate produced by the 3rd respondent is not in conformity with the prescription as in Ext.P3. The petitioner relied on Ext.P22, the notification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which prescribes more for disability calculation. As per Ext.P2, the person applying under the disability quota who has mental illness and intellectual disability, disability should be 50% with an IQ between 55 and 69. As directed by this Court, the 3rd respondent produced the disability certificate at the time of submitting the application, which shows the IQ is stated as 65, which is in tune with Ext.P2; therefore, on that score also, the contention of the petitioner is to be rejected. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the prescription of 35% of minimum marks, included in Ext.P3 notification as per the scheme approved by the Hon'ble Chief 27 WPC 21048/22 Justice as per Rule 7 of the High Court Recruitment Rules, is illegal. Moreover, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Tajvir Singh (Supra), the petitioner, who with open eyes, submitted the application with the precision of a minimum of 35% marks to be obtained in the interview to be included in the final rank list and be unsuccessful in the interview without obtaining the minimum marks, cannot now challenge the prescription in the notification prescribing the minimum cut- off mark. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the challenge in the notification to the extent of prescription of 35% of minimum marks for the interview is to be repelled. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE.
dl/ 28 WPC 21048/22 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21048/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUC COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DISABILITY BEARING NO. GMHC/146/2022 DATED 18.03.2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE CHAIRMAN, MEDICAL BOARD, GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM. Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. 4014 DATED 19.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE CIVIL SURGCON, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, PANDAPPILLY. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTICE NO. D312792/18 DATED 18.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.
REC395662/2019 DATED 19.12.2019 FOR SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF OFFICE ATTENDANT (RECRUITMENT NO. 14/2019).
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEARING NO.
14120890.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE E-MAIL DATED 23.04.2021 SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RECRUITMENT AND EXAMINATION CELL.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER BEARING ROLL NUMBER 31010306. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CARBON COPY OMR ANSWER SHEET. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST BEARING NO.
REC95662/2019 DATED 23.12.2019 FOR SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF OFFICE ATTENDANT (RECRUITMENT NO. 14/2019).
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. REC 3-95662/2019 DATED 03.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF OFFICE ATTENDANT (RECRUITMENT NO. 14/2019) DATED 17.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
29WPC 21048/22 Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.06.2022 IN WP(C) NO. 25001/2021 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F.NO.29- 6/2019-DD-III DATED 10/08/2022 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF EMPOWERMENT OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (DIVYANGJAN), MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR THE GRANT OF SCRIBE FACILITY FOR PSC EXAMS ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI QUERY DATED 20/06/2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY NO.PIO 244/2022 DATED 18/07/2022 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ATTACHED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A3-113793/2022 DATED 03.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1S T RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE STATUS DETAILS AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 11.08.2022 AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF G.O.(P) NO.
19/2020/SJD DATED 25.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF EXTRAORDINARY GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO. S.O. 76(E) DATED 04.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPOWERMENT OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (DIVYANGJAN), MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure SELECTION SCHEME AS DIRECTED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT 30 WPC 21048/22 Exhibit A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DISABILITY R3(A) ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER NO A3/4939/2020/DMHD DTD 20-1-2021 ISSUED BY DISTRICT MEDICAL HOSPITAL PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM