Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Swapna Surendran vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 16 December, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. NO. 1215 OF 2012
Tuesday, this the 16th day of December, 2013
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. K.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Swapna Surendran
Santhi Bhavan, LBSRA - 307,
LBS Road, Thiruvankulam
Ernakulam ... Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil)
versus
1. Union of India represented by the Secretary
to Government in the Ministry of Agriculture
Central Secretariat
New Delhi - 110 011
2. Coconut Development Board
represented by its Secretary
Kera Bhavan
SRVHS Road, Kochi - 682 011
3. The Secretary
Coconut Development Board
Kera Bhavan, SRVHS Road
Kochi - 682 011
4. Jeethu M Gopalan
Makkath House
Chavakkad PO, Chettuva Road
Chavakkad - 680 656
5. Vincy Varghese
Thottathil House
Cheeyambam PO, Pulpally
Wayanad - 673 579
6. Simi Thomas
Vattathara House
Nayarambalam PO
Ernakulam - 682 509
7. P.Muruganandam
T.Kovil Patty, Pappanampatty Post
Reddiearchatiram Via, Dindigul District
Tamil Nadu - 624 622 ... Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC (R1-3) )
The application having been heard on 30.10.2013, the Tribunal on
17.12.2013 delivered the following:
O R D E R
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER, JUDICIAL MEMBER The short question that arises for consideration in this Original Application is whether allocation of 40% marks for interview for selection to the post of Technical Officer in the Coconut Development Board (for short, the Board) is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory.
2. Essential facts which are necessary to consider the above question may be briefly noticed.
3. Applicant was one among the 159 aspirants who applied for the post of Technical Officer in the Board in response to Annexure A-1 notification issued on May 21, 2012. It is on record that 111 candidates out of 159 applicants were invited for a written examination. Only 12 out of those candidates who obtained 40% or more marks in the written test were invited for the interview before the Departmental Promotion Committee on September 28, 2012. The Committee prepared a panel of five selectees and ranked them on the basis of the total marks obtained by them in the written test, interview and group discussion. Applicant was placed at rank No.4 in the said list, a copy of which is available on record as Annexure A-4. Since the candidate at rank No.1, viz. Ms.Jeethu M Gopalan did not accept the offer of appointment, the next candidate viz. Ms.Vincy Varghese who was at rank No.2 was given the appointment.
4. Applicant contends that the Board ought not to have taken into account the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview at all. She therefore prays that Annexure A-4 panel of selectees and Annexure A-7 score sheet prepared by the Selection Committee be quashed. She further prays for a declaration that the selection process held by the Board is "unconstitutional, inoperative and void " and consequently seeks to set aside selection / appointment of Ms.Jeethu M Gopalan and Ms.Vincy Varghese, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively.
5.. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have stoutly justified and defended their action and contended inter-alia that the selection process was held strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Recruitment Rules. A Departmental Selection Committee had conducted the selection process and finalized the list of five candidates who obtained the maximum marks in the aggregate, in the written test, group discussion and interview. These selectees were ranked in the order of merit. Thus it is contended by the official respondents that the selection process was held in a totally legal and proper manner.
6. Applicant has challenged the selection process solely on the ground that the Selection Committee was not justified in allocating 40% marks (80/200) for interview. It is contended by the learned counsel that allocation of such a high percentage of marks for interview is totally arbitrary and illegal and this will give room for manipulation and discrimination . It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the applicant had obtained 52% marks in the written examination whereas Respondent No.4 had scored only 41%. Similarly, respondent No.5 who was placed at rank No.2 had obtained only 43% marks in the written examination. But respondent Nos. 4 & 5 were awarded 72 and 62 marks respectively out of 80 marks allocated for interview. However, applicant was given only 47 marks. Learned counsel submits that this will clearly illustrate the discriminatory treatment meted out by the Selection Committee to the applicant.
7. A perusal of Annexure A-7 score sheet will show that one Ms.Aswathy Krishna.R and Ms.Sreeja S.J had obtained 54.5% and 54% marks respectively in the written examination. Similarly another candidate, viz., Ms.Neeraja C.R had obtained 50.5% marks. But still these three candidates could not make the grade. We have referred to the above aspect only to indicate that the Selection Committee had obviously assessed the merit of the 12 shortlisted candidates after evaluating their overall performance in the written test, group discussion and interview. As has been noticed already 100 marks were allocated for written examination, 20 marks for group discussion and 80 marks for interview. The Departmental Selection Committee consisted of four members of whom Shri Venkatesh N Hubballi, Director, Directorate of Coconut and Cashew nut Development was included as a representative of DOAC, Government of India and SC/ST Community . The Chairman of the Board was the Chairman of the Selection Committee. We have carefully perused the original selection file which was produced by the official respondents as directed by us. We have not found any material in the file which would cast any shadow of doubt over the whole process of selection.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited our attention to a decision of the Apex Court in Director General, Indian Council for Agricultural Research and Ors. Vs. D.Sundara Raju, (2011 AIR SCW 2122) in support of his argument that allocation of disproportionately high percentage of marks for interview is arbitrary.
9. The question that came up for consideration in Sundara Raju (supra) was whether allocation of 50% marks for interview for selection to the post of Principal Scientist under the "Career Advancement scheme"
formulated by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research was arbitrary. It was noticed by their Lordships that the above quinquennial assessment scheme was to provide opportunities for career advancement irrespective of the occurrence of vacancies. It was also noticed that " Career Advancement Scheme" did not sanction a method of evaluation of the candidates by allocating 30% marks for Research Publication / Achievement, 20% marks for recommendation of Superiors and 50% marks for personal interview. Still further, the scheme did not refer to or indicate that interview of the candidates can provide the basis for entitlement of promotion. It was in the above facts and circumstance of the case that their Lordships held that allocation of 50% marks for interview was not justified particularly when it was not disclosed by the ICAR to the candidates that interview also would be held to evaluate the suitability for selection to the post of Principal Scientist. It was also noticed by the Apex Court that in the subsequent selection process the above criterion was changed and the marks for interview was brought down from 50% to 10%. The above decision in our view will not come into the aid of the applicant.
10. In Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others ( AIR 1987 SC 454 ) their Lordships, after considering the relevant Rule in Punjab Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 observed thus :
" If both written examination and viva voce are accepted as essential features of proper selection in a given case, the question may arise as to the weight to be attached respectively to them. There cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the precise weight to be given to the viva voce test as against the written examination. It must vary from service to service according to the requirement of the service, the minimum qualification prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the viva voce test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors."
11. In Inder Parkash Gupta vs. State of J & K (2006 SCC 786) it has been held that " no hard and fast rule of universal application of marks for viva voce test can be laid down. Their Lordships in P.Mohanan Pillai vs. State of Kerala and Others ( (2007) 9 SCC 497, has after referring to a catena of decisions held thus:
" The question as to how much marks should be allocated for interview would depend upon the post and nature of duties to be performed. The nature of duties to be performed on the post of Watchman / Messenger / Attender does not require highly intellectual ability or any particular trait of the candidates, which is required to be judged by an expert."
12. In the case on hand, it is beyond controversy that all the candidates were informed while issuing the call letters, that those who qualify in the written test would be required to appear for interview before the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is true that these candidates were not notified about the percentage of marks set apart for interview or group discussion. It has already been noticed that 20 marks (10%) were allocated for group discussion and 80 marks (40%) for viva voce. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that allocation of 40% marks for interview is highly arbitrary not only since it was not specifically mentioned in the call letter or in the advertisement / notification, but also since it gives room for manipulation. According to the learned counsel "casual mention" about the interview in the call letter (Annexure A-2) only suggested that the same was meant to assess the fitness of the candidate and not the relative merit vis-a-vis other competitors.
13. In our view the above contentions is a little too far fetched and totally misconceived. In Annexure A-1 advertisement / notification the essential qualification was prescribed as hereunder:-
" Degree of a recognized University in Agriculture / Horticulture preferably with experience in noting and drafting in technical matters."
(emphasis supplied by us)
14. It can be seen that the Board was looking for a candidate who had sufficient experience and adeptness in " noting and drafting in technical matters". It would not have been possible to assess the above capability or capacity in a candidate by merely looking at his/her marks in a written examination. A group discussion and interview will make such an exercise more meaningful. Therefore, allocation of 50% marks for group discussion and interview cannot be said to be arbitrary at all, particularly keeping in view the fact that Board was looking to fill up the post of Technical Officer in a research oriented establishment. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the applicant that allocation of 40% marks for interview had vitiated the selection process. The dictum laid down in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra), Inder Parkash Gupta (supra) and also in P.Mohanan Pillai (supra) will support the view taken by us.
15. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 has raised a contention that going by the dictum in Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala (2006 (2) KLT 923 (SC), it is not open to the applicant to assail the selection process after having participated and failed to qualify.
16. Thus having regard to the entire facts and circumstance of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that allocation of 40% marks for interview in the selection process held by the Board for selection to the post of Technical Officer cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal at all particularly keeping in view the nature of duties to be performed by a person holding the said post.
17. Original Application fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Dated, the 17th December, 2013. K GEORGE JOSEPH JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER vs