Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Prashant Mishra vs Council Of Scientific & Industrial ... on 6 January, 2025
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00208/2023 Prashant Mishra Vs. U.O.I .& Ors
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
Original Application No.332/00208/2023
Order reserved on: 19.12.2024
Order pronounced on: 06.01.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Prashant Mishra, aged about 29 years, Son of Late Akhilesh Kumar
Mishra, Resident of 6/480 Jankipuram Vistar, Lucknow.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Alok Trivedi
VERSUS
1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research - Indian Institute of
Toxicology Research (CSIR-IITR), Vishvigyan Bhawan, 31, M.G.
Marg, Lucknow through its Director.
2. Director, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research - Indian
Institute of Toxicology Research (CSIR-IITR), Vishvigyan Bhawan,
31, M.G. Marg, Lucknow.
3. Administrative Officer, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
- Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Vishvigyan Bhawan 31,
M.G. Marg, Lucknow.
4. Selection Committee, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research -
Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Vishvigyan Bhawan 31,
M.G. Marg, Lucknow.
......Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Rajendra Singh
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to selection, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
"(i) Set-aside the impugned notice No. IITR/1-Estt./Rec./2020(TA) dated 03.04.2023 to the extent of fixing 70% minimum threshold/cut-off marks for qualifying paper for Post Code T-14-18, for which the applicant has applied, and consequential actions taken thereupon, and Page 1 of 14 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00208/2023 Prashant Mishra Vs. U.O.I .& Ors also clarification notice No. IITR/1-Estt./Rec./2020 (TA) dated 13.03.2023 to the extent so far as it relates to paper (i) after summing the same in original from the respondents, impugned as Annexure No. A-1 and A-2, to this Original Application.
(ii) Direct the respondents to fix a reasonable threshold/cut-off marks of 30% relatable to the notice dated 03.01.2023 and 20.02.2023 (Annexure No. 11) for qualifying Paper (i), since the advertisement and clarification notice thereto, the Paper (i) was the qualifying in nature and also the sister institutions of the CSIR-IITR has fixed the reasonable minimum threshold/cut-off marks for qualifying paper as stated in the body of the present original application and accordingly prepare the final merit list after totaling the marks of Paper (ii) and Paper (iii),
(iii) Direct the respondents to fix a minimum threshold /cut -off marks for qualifying paper i.e. Paper (i) below or equal to 40% marks, on the basis of which {i.e. consolidated marks obtained in Paper (ii) and Paper (iii)} the final merit list have to be prepared, as the Selection Committee took the decision to fix the minimum threshold/cut-off marks for consolidated marks of Paper (ii) and Paper (iii) and accordingly prepare the final merit list after totaling the marks of Paper (ii) and Paper (iii),
(iv) Any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed, favouring the applicant; and
(v) award the cost of litigation."
2.1 The facts of the case are that the applicant, a post graduate in Chemistry, applied for the post of Technical Assistant under the respondents in response to advertisement dated 17.08.2020. The advertisement stipulated that the candidates recommended by the Screening Committee will be invited for trade/skill test, which is of qualifying nature, and the candidates qualifying in the trade/skill test will be invited for competitive written examination. A clarification was issued vide notice dated 13.03.2023 that there will be three Papers for the post of Technical Assistant; Paper-II and Paper-III will be evaluated only for those candidates who secure the minimum threshold marks (to be decided by the Selection Committee) in Paper-I; and final merit list will be prepared only on the basis of marks obtained in Paper-II and Paper-III.
2.2 The applicant appeared in the trade test on 19.03.2023 and having secured more than cut-off of 90% marks was permitted to appear in the written examination held the next day, i.e., 20.03.2023. The Page 2 of 14 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00208/2023 Prashant Mishra Vs. U.O.I .& Ors applicant secured 68% marks in Paper-I which was of qualifying nature and for which minimum threshold or cut-off marks was fixed at 70%. As a result, the applicant could not qualify for further evaluation of Paper-II and Paper-III. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA. 3.1 The Applicant's main contention is that the respondents fixed the threshold/cut-off marks for the qualifying Paper-I arbitrarily and with ulterior motive.
3.2 In support of his contention, the applicant points out firstly that the threshold for the qualifying Paper-I was set at much higher level of 70% while the threshold for Paper-II and Paper-III was set at 40%, vide notice dated 03.04.2023, even though it was nowhere provided that higher proficiency will be required in Paper-I in comparison to subject knowledge in Paper-II and Paper-III. The arbitrary threshold resulted in no candidate getting selected in the applicant's category T-14-18. 3.3 Secondly, the examination was held for Papers-I, II and III on a single OMR sheet though it should have been held on separate OMR sheet for each Paper.
3.4 Thirdly, other sister institutions fixed lower threshold marks for Paper-I; e.g., CSIR-IMMT, CSIR-NIO and CSIR-CSIO fixed the minimum threshold as 35% for Paper-I, and CSIR-CECRI fixed the minimum threshold as 30%. Even the respondents themselves had fixed the minimum threshold marks for Paper-I at 35% in the previous advertisement dated 26.03.2016.
3.5 Fourthly, it is contended that one candidate, Deepali Tripathi, in the category T-01-07, was favoured by deliberately fixing the arbitrary threshold of 70%to disqualify maximum number of candidates and to favour Deepali Tripathi who is a Research Scholar in the same institute. Page 3 of 14 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00208/2023 Prashant Mishra Vs. U.O.I .& Ors 3.6 Fifthly, due notice was not given to the applicant about the minimum threshold marks at any stage of the selection process which is a fundamental principle of fair and impartial selection process. In support, the applicant has cited Tej Prakash Pathak vs Rajasthan High Court AIR Online 2024 SC 747.
3.7 Sixthly, the Selection Committee should consist of 4 members as per rule 9.1.1 of the CSIR Service Rules, 1994 with one supervisory member from outside the CSIR system, but the Selection Committee consisted of 7 members with no member from outside the CSIR system. 3.8 The applicant states that he is 29 years of age and will not be able to participate in the next examination owing to the arbitrarily high threshold set by the respondents for Paper-I. He further states that he had filed Writ-A No. 3308 of 2023 before Hon'ble High Court and, vide order dated 03.05.2023, was permitted to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to approach this Tribunal. Vide affidavit dated 12.03.2024, the applicant prayed for interim relief by restraining the respondents from proceeding ahead with fresh recruitment process initiated through advertisement dated 26.02.2024 so as to prevent irreparable loss and injury to the applicant.
4.1 The respondents state that following the advertisement dated 17.08.2020 and clarification dated 13.03.2023 based on CSIR letters dated 09.04.2018, 01.04.2019 and 23.09.2019, 86 candidates, including the applicant were shortlisted for the 5 unreserved posts of T-14-18 (Chemical Sciences). After the trade test conducted on 19.03.2023, in which 24 candidates appeared, 10 candidates were called for the written examination and out of them 8 candidates (applicant included) could not secure the minimum 70% qualifying marks in Paper-I determined by the Selection Committee. For the other two candidates, Paper-II and Paper-III Page 4 of 14 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00208/2023 Prashant Mishra Vs. U.O.I .& Ors were evaluated, but they could not secure minimum threshold 40% marks and, therefore, no candidate was found suitable. 4.2 Minimum threshold marks for Paper-I, II and III were decided by the Selection Committee based on various factors such as standard of question paper, negative marking, nature of work to be assigned. There was no negative marking for Paper-I. There was 1/3 negative marking for every wrong answer in Paper-II and Paper-III (subject knowledge) as 'hit and trial' method does not work for such responsible posts. This is the reason for variation in the threshold marks for Paper-I and Paper-II & III. The nature of work/responsibility of the advertised post of Technical Assistants requires high standard of knowledge and cannot be compromised.
4.3 It is stated that the respondents' software can read those answers/set of answers which is prefixed in the software. It is not necessary to evaluate the OMR sheet fully in one go. Therefore, it is not necessary to provide the separate OMR sheets for Paper-II and Paper-III. However, due to small number of OMR sheets, the Selection Sheet evaluated Paper-I manually.
4.4 The examination was conducted as per CSIR's guidelines dated 09.04.2018 and 23.09.2019. The power to decide the methodology to conduct examination has been conferred with the duly constituted Selection Committee of the institute which may vary from lab to lab. 4.5 As far as selection of Deepali Tripathi is concerned, a certificate regarding 'conflict of interest' was obtained from the Chairman and all the members who attended the Selection Committee meeting. 4.6 The proceedings of the Selection Committee were finalized and approved by the Director, CSIT-IITR on 31.03.2023 and subsequently the Page 5 of 14 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00208/2023 Prashant Mishra Vs. U.O.I .& Ors minimum threshold marks were published along with the selection criteria vide notice dated 03.04.2023.
4.7 One of the members (supervisory level expert) is a scientist retired from CSIR-IITR and hence he is considered as from outside the CSIR system. The members exceeding the composition as per rule 9.1.1 of the CSIR Service Rules, 1994 are as per guidelines dated 13.02.2014 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT, hereafter) regarding representation of SC, ST, OBC, Minorities and women on Selection Board/Committees and endorsed by CSIR vide letter dated 17.06.2014.
5. We have heard both the parties.
6.1 The principles governing adjudication of substantive issues arising in this OA have been traversed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors vs State of Jammu & Kashmir &Ors 2023 SSC Online SC 344. To begin with, on the scope of judicial review in the selection process, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"Selection Process for Public Employment: Interference by Courts:
12. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to preface our judgment with the view that Courts in India generally avoid interfering in the selection process of public employment, recognising the importance of maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. The Courts recognise that the process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion and that it is not appropriate for Courts to substitute their judgment for that of a selection committee. It would be indeed, treading on thin ice for us if we were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form a part of a selection board. The law on the scope and extent of judicial review of a selection process and results thereof, may be understood on consideration of the following case law:
i) In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434, this Court clarified the scope of judicial review of a selection process, in the following words:
"9...It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the selection committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether the candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted selection committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee Page 6 of 14 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00208/2023 Prashant Mishra Vs. U.O.I .& Ors or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved malafides affecting the selection etc....."
ii) In a similar vein, in Secy. (Health) Deptt. Of Health & F.W. vs. Dr. Anita Puri, (1996) 6 SCC 282, this Court observed as under as regards the sanctity of a selection process and the grounds on which the results thereof may be interfered with:
"9. ... It is too well settled that when a selection is made by an expert body like the Public Service Commission which is also advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualification in the field for which the selection is to be made, the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless allegations of mala fide are made and established. It would be prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decisions on such matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts. If the expert body considers suitability of a candidate for a specified post after giving due consideration to all the relevant factors, then the court should not ordinarily interfere with such selection and evaluation......."
iii) This position was reiterated by this Court in M. V. Thimmaiah vs. Union Public Service Commission, (2008) 2 SCC 119, in the following words:
"21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion... xxx
30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an Appellate Authority to call for the personal records and constitute Selection Committee to undertake this exercise. This power is not given to the Tribunal and it should be clearly understood that the assessment of the Selection Committee is not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the courts. One has to give credit to the Selection Committee for making their assessment and it is not subject to appeal. Taking the overall view of ACRs of the candidates, one may be held to be very good and another may be held to be good. If this type of interference is permitted then it would virtually amount that the Tribunals and the High Courts have started sitting as Selection Committee or act as an Appellate Authority over the selection. It is not their domain, it should be clearly understood, as has been clearly held by this Court in a number of decisions....."
iv)...
12.1 Thus, the inexorable conclusion that can be drawn is that it is not within thedomain of the Courts, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the meritsof 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 ofinherent arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene."
(emphasis supplied) Page 7 of 14 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00208/2023 Prashant Mishra Vs. U.O.I .& Ors It is evident from the above that the selection process can be challenged only on the grounds of manifest mala fide or serious violation of extant rules.
6.2 The other issue expounded in Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra) and having bearing on case at hand was the challenge to the selection process by an unsuccessful candidate after participating in it without demur, and it was observed as follows:
"13.The next aspect of the matter which requires consideration is the contention of the writ petitioners to the effect that the entire selection process was vitiated as the eligibility criteria enshrined in the Advertisement Notice dated 5thMay, 2008 was recast vide a corrigendum dated 12th June, 2009, without any justifiable reason. In order to consider this contention, regard may be had to the following case law:
i) In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court authoritatively declared that having participated in a selection process without any protest, it would not be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently.
ii) In Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment for the post of physiotherapist. Candidates who failed to clear the written test presented a writ petition and prayed for quashing the advertisement and the process of selection. They pleaded that the advertisement and the test were ultra vires the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Medical Health and Family Welfare Department Physiotherapist and Occupational Therapist Service Rules, 1998. After referring to a catena of judgments on the principle of waiver and estoppel, this Court did not entertain the challenge for the reason that the same would not be maintainable after participation in the selection process.
The pertinent observations of this Court are as under:
"24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."
(iii)...
13.1. 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."
(emphasis supplied) Page 8 of 14 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00208/2023 Prashant Mishra Vs. U.O.I .& Ors It follows from the above that the selection criteria cannot be challenged by an unsuccessful candidate who has participated in such process without protest.
7.1 Having set out the principles governing judicial review of the selection process as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we first turn to the matter of alleged violation of rule 9.1.1 of the CSIR Service Rules, 1994 on the ground that there was no supervisory member from outside CSIR and that the number of members exceeded the prescribed composition. The said rule is quoted below:
"9. Constitution of Selection and Screening Committees. 9.1 For recruitment to groups I, II (1) to II (4), III (1) & III (2) 9.1.1 The Selection Committee shall be constituted as under:
Chairman/Alternate Chairman (to be To be nominated by MC in nominated from a sister Lab./Instt.) Labs./Instts.
Director/ JS(A) or his nominee Member JS(A) in CSIR Hqrs
Two supervisory level Experts Members
(one of whom will be from outside CSIR system)
Quorum: Chairman/Alternate Chairman, Director or his nominee and at least one expert."
(emphasis supplied) 7.2 The respondents have stated that a scientist who had retired from CSIR-IITR was appointed as one of the supervisory level experts. It is observed that a retired officer no longer serves under the supervision and control of the Government or its organizations. To the extent that a scientist who has retired from CSIR-IITR is not under the control and supervision of the respondents, his inclusion as an outside member in the Selection Committee cannot be held to be in serious violation of rule 9.1.1, in our view. In the instant case, we have not noticed any prejudice caused to the applicant on account of inclusion of retired scientist of CSIR-IITR as outside member. Having observed so, we hasten to add that in consonance with the letter and spirit of the rule 9.1.1 and in the interest of transparency, it would be appropriate if the respondents Page 9 of 14 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00208/2023 Prashant Mishra Vs. U.O.I .& Ors consider nominating a person as an expert who has not worked in CSIR system in future recruitments.
7.3 In regard to the additional members appointed in the Selection Committee, we observe that the respondents have done so in consonance with the DoPT's guidelines dated 13.02.2014 implemented by CSIR vide letter dated 17.06.2014 to ensure representation of SC, ST, OBC, minorities and women candidates on Selection Board/Committees. We observe no infirmity in the respondents' action and notice that no prejudice has been caused to the applicant by enlarging the Selection Committee in this manner.
8.1 The other contention to be examined is the allegation of mala fide action on part of the Selection Committee in determining a high minimum threshold for Paper-I to disqualify most candidates so as to favour one candidate Deepali Tripathi.
8.2 To begin with, it is noted that the scheme of examination for Technical Assistants as per Annexure-V of CSIR's letter dated 09.04.2018 is as follows:
Paper-I (Time Allotted - 1 hour) Subject No. of Maximum Marks Negative Marks questions Mental Ability 50 100 (Two marks There will be no Test* for every correct negative marks in this answer) paper.
*Mental Ability Test will be so devised so as to include General intelligence, Quantitative Aptitude, Reasoning, Problem Solving, Situational Judgment etc. Paper-II (Time Allotted - 30 Minutes) Subject No. of Maximum Marks Negative Marks questions General 25 75 (Three marks One negative mark for Awareness for every correct every wrong answer.
answer)
English 25 75 (Three marks One negative mark for
Language for every correct every wrong answer.
answer)
Page 10 of 14
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00208/2023 Prashant Mishra Vs. U.O.I .& Ors
Paper-III (Time Allotted - 90 Minutes)
Subject No. of Maximum Marks Negative Marks
questions
Concerned 100 300 (Three marks One negative mark for
Subject for every correct every wrong answer.
answer)
Further, vide letter dated 23.09.2019, CSIR clarified the methodology of the marks inter alia for Technical Assistants, in the following manner:
S. Post/Designation Remarks
No.
4. Technical For these posts there will be three papers
Assistant (Paper-I, Paper-II & Paper-III)
[(Erstwhile Group
Paper-II & III will be evaluated only
III(1) & III(2)]
for those candidates who secure the
minimum threshold marks (to be
determined by the Selection
Committee) in Paper-I.
We notice no deviation from the scheme of examination by the respondents as laid out in the instructions above.
8.3 Coming to the alleged discrimination vis a vis Deepali Tripathi raised by the applicant, it is noticed that that the applicant appeared for the post T-14-18 of Technical Assistant (Chemical Sciences) while Deepali Tripathi appeared for the post T-01-07 of Technical Assistant (Biological Sciences). The posts being of different streams or specialization, we fail to comprehend how the applicant has been put to disadvantage in selection of Deepali Tripathi.
9.1 Finally, we address one aspect of the examination process which has been raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that the determination of minimum threshold for the three Papers should have been done before the conduct of the written examination and not after the examination arbitrarily. In this context, we quote below the extract from paragraph 30 of the judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) Page 11 of 14 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00208/2023 Prashant Mishra Vs. U.O.I .& Ors cited by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the concluding paragraph 42:
"30...Thus, in our view, the appointing authority/recruiting authority/ competent authority, in absence of Rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure for selection of a candidate suitable to the post and while doing so it may also set benchmarks for different stages of the recruitment process including written examination and interview. However, if such benchmark is set, the same should be stipulated before the commencement of the recruitment process. But if the extant Rules or the advertisement inviting applications empower the competent authority to set benchmarks at different stages of the recruitment process, then such benchmarks may be set any time before that stage is reached so that neither the candidate not the evaluator/examiner/interviewer is taken by surprise... ...
42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms: (1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; (2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non- arbitrariness;
(3) The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals with the right to be placed in the Select List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues; (4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-
discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved;
(5) Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps;
(6) Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies.However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list."
(emphasis supplied) 9.2 In the case at hand, it is noted that no minimum threshold marks were prescribed for Paper-I in the advertisement dated Page 12 of 14 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00208/2023 Prashant Mishra Vs. U.O.I .& Ors 17.08.2020. The instructions dated 23.09.2019 authorized the Selection Committee to determine the minimum threshold marks for Paper-I, but did not indicate the stage of the recruitment process at which such threshold should be determined. Admittedly, the written examination for Papers-I, II & III was held on 20.03.2023, the Selection Committee's recommendation for 70% as minimum threshold marks in Paper-I (and 40% in Paper-II & Paper-III) was approved by the competent authority on 31.03.2023 and the minimum threshold marks were notified on 03.04.2023, i.e., after the written examination was over. In other words, while no minimum threshold was declared for Paper-I at the time of commencement of the recruitment process, there was a provision for determination of such minimum threshold for Paper-I by the Selection Committee, but this was done after the conduct of the examination. It is evident that the observation made in paragraph 30 of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) has not been followed by the respondents. The question which arises, therefore, is whether the action of the respondents meets the requirement of Article 14 and satisfies the test of non-arbitrariness. 9.3 There are two facts to be considered here. First, there was a requirement to fix a minimum threshold for Paper-I, but no such threshold was fixed when the recruitment process began. The minimum threshold was notified after the written examination was over. Second, out of 10 candidates who appeared in the written examination for Technical Assistant (Chemical Sciences), 8 candidates, including the applicant, could not clear the qualifying Paper-I. 2 candidates who qualified in Paper-I, could not meet the minimum threshold marks prescribed for Paper-II and Paper-III. The net result was that no candidate was recommended for selection against the 5 unreserved vacancies for Technical Assistant (Chemical Sciences) advertised. In such a scenario where the same norm was applicable to all the candidates and Page 13 of 14 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00208/2023 Prashant Mishra Vs. U.O.I .& Ors no candidate was selected, it cannot be said that the conduct of respondents is hit by Article 14 or it does not satisfy the test of non- arbitrariness, in our view.
9.4 Having noticed that another selection process has been initiated by the respondents vide advertisement dated 26.02.2024, we are of the opinion that the respondents should notify the minimum threshold marks before the stage of examination is reached in the interest of transparency and in consonance with the observations made in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra).
10.1 In view of the above facts and circumstances, no relief can be granted to the applicant. This OA is disposed of accordingly. 10.2 The respondents shall take note of and consider our observations made in paragraphs 7.2 and 9.4 of this order for appropriate action as per rules for the purpose of ongoing as well as future recruitment processes.
10.3 Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
10.4 The Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela Date: 2025.01.06
12:18:35 +05'30'
Page 14 of 14