Tripura High Court
Sri Jayanta Choudhury vs The State Of Tripura on 29 June, 2018
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(C) No.1404 of 2017
Sri Jayanta Choudhury,
son of Sri Swadesh Krishna Choudhury,
resident of Kunjaban Colony,
P.O. Abhoynagar, Mahadeb Bari Road,
District: West Tripura, Agartala,
PIN: 799 005
----Petitioner (s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary,
to the Government of Tripura,
Department of Higher Education,
P.O. Agartala, District: Tripura (W)
2. Tripura Public Service Commission,
represented by Chairman,
Akhaura Road, Agartala,
Tripura, PIN: 799 001,
District: West Tripura
3. The Secretary,
of Tripura Public Service Commission,
Akhaura Road, Agartala,
Tripura, PIN: 799 001,
District: West Tripura
----Respondents
For Petitioner (s) : Ms. S. Deb Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Datta, Adv.
Date of Hearing : 23.03.2018
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 29.06.2018
Whether fit for
Reporting : YES
Page 2 of 20
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Judgment & Order
In terms of the advertisement No.05/2016 [Annexure- 1 to the writ petition] issued by the Tripura Public Service Commission (the TPSC in short), the petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer, Diploma Level Technical Institutions in Tripura, Group-A Gazetted under the Education (Higher) Department, Government of Tripura in the scale of pay of Rs.15,600-39,100/- with AGP Rs.5,400/- per month.
02. By the said advertisement applications were invited from the eligible candidates having the educational qualifications for filling up of 65 posts of Lecturer, diploma level in various disciplines. For purpose of reference, the various discipline/subject-wise vacancy and vacancies allocated for reserved category candidates have been shown in a table in the advertisement. The said table is reproduced hereunder:
Sl. Name of the Subject/Discipline Vacancy in the discipline Total No as per 100 point roster SC ST UR a b c d e f
1. Civil Engineering 02 04 07 13
2. Mechanical Engineering 02 03 05 10
3. Electronics 01 04 06 11 & Telecommunication Engineering
4. Electrical Engineering 02 02 05 09
5. Computer Science Technology - 01 02 03
6. Automobile Engineering - 01 01 02
7. Architect Engineering - 01 01 02
8. Food processing Technology - 01 01 02
9. Fashion Technology - 01 01 02
10. Mathematics 01 01 02 04
11. Physics - 01 01 02
12. Chemistry - 01 01 02
13. English - 01 - 01
14. Commerce - 01 - 01 Total: 08 23 34 65 Page 3 of 20
03. On scrutiny of the records the petitioner was found eligible for the said post and he was asked to appear in the screening test for direct recruitment to the post of Lecturer, Group-A Gazetted, Diploma Level in reference to Advertisement No.05/2016, Item No.02 in the UR category. Accordingly the petitioner appeared in the said screening test held on 18.07.2017, 20.07.2017 and 21.07.2017 for recruitment for the said post of Lecturer, Diploma Level technical institutions in Tripura. By the notification dated 12.10.2017 the TPSC published the result and the petitioner had come out successful in the said screening test. Later on the petitioner was asked by a call letter dated 21.10.2017 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition] to appear in the interview- cum-personality test on 16.11.2017 at the office of the TPSC with all original documents namely pass certificate/ marksheets of educational qualifications, experience certificate if any, no objection certificate from the present employer if required. There are facts beyond dispute.
04. When the petitioner came across the memorandum under No.F.9(40)/Con/Exam/TPSC/2016- 1629 dated 30.03.2017 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition] published in the official website of the Tripura Public Service Commission he became apprehensive and filed the writ Page 4 of 20 petition. For purpose of further reference, the entire text of the memorandum dated 30.03.2017 is extracted hereunder:
"In supersession of the earlier memos/Notifications, the Commission has decided to follow, henceforth, the following principles for provisional recommendation of candidates.
1. In case of Scheduled Examination, recommendation is to be made as per provision in the Service/Recruitment Rules.
2. For Non-Scheduled Examination personality test for 100 marks is divided in to two parts.
1. Academic performance 50 marks *
2. Viva voce Interview 50 marks ** * Academic Performance Indicator (API) Academic performance of candidates will be assessed on the basis of marks obtained by the candidate in Boards/Universities up to a minimum qualification and experience (where ever required), ** In viva voce/interview, 25 marks will be given by subject experts and remaining 25 marks will be given by all the board members of the viva voce test except SC & ST representative present in the board on the following of parameters:
i. Knowledge in the concerned field
ii. Analytical power,
iii. Professional attitude,
iv. Communication skill,
v. General Knowledge & Current Affairs etc.
vi. Emotional attitude etc.
3. For Non-scheduled Examinations,
Recommendation:
(A) In case of recruitment to certain post(s) by
Personality Test only, the merit list is to be prepared on the basis of marks awarded by the Interview Board & API and recommendation will be made on the basis of merit list subject to availability of vacancy.
(B) In case of recruitment through Examination/Screening Test followed by Personality Test, the recommendation is to be made on the basis of merit list being prepared by adding the marks obtained in Examination/Screening Test to marks obtained in the Personality Test.Page 5 of 20
4. For Non-Scheduled Examination, where the selection is to be made on the performance of the personality test only, qualifying marks in the total of the personality test is 50 for UR and 40 for reserved category (SC/ST/PH/Ex-Serviceman) candidates. The candidate who does not qualify in the Personality Test will not be considered for recommendation.
5. There will be no qualifying marks in the personality test where any screening test or examination is held before personality test.
6. In the list of recommendation, merit position of candidates securing equal marks will be finalized as per their seniority or age. The same procedure is to be followed for preparing waiting list, if there be any.
Further provided that in the list of recommendation, merit position of candidates securing equal marks in aggregate and also of the same age, will be decided on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in the minimum educational qualification prescribed in Recruitment Rules/Service Rules.
7. Ranks of the candidates are not prepared for the candidates beyond the recommendation list and waiting list (if there be any),
8. In case any difficulty arises while applying cut-off marks for Non-Scheduled Examination, the Commission after due consideration of facts and circumstances may make change, before Interview/Personality Test, in the cut-off marks after recording reason in details for doing so.
9. These rules/principles are however subject to further modification/review by the Commission from time to time as and when required."
05. The recruitment was being made by the mode for non-scheduled examinations and as a result during the interview-cum-personality test, for the academic performance 50% marks was provided and the other 50% was provided for the performance in the Viva-voce/ interview-cum-personality test. In the said memorandum dated 30.03.2017 it has been further highlighted that in case of the scheduled examination, recommendation followed by the personality test, the recommendation be Page 6 of 20 made on the result by adding the marks obtained in Examination/Screening Test to the marks obtained in the personality test. It has been further provided that for non- scheduled examination where selection is to be made on the performance of the personality test only, qualifying marks for the personality test shall be 50 for UR and 40 for the reserved category (SC/ST/PH/Ex-serviceman) candidates. The candidates who do not qualify in the personality test will be not considered for recommendation.
06. The petitioner by filing this petition has challenged the sudden change or departure as made from the earlier practice after the Adv. No.05/2016 was issued, but before the screening test was held on 18.07.2017, 20.07.2017 and 21.07.2017. According to the petitioner, for the written examination (Screening Test) marks were distributed in the following manner:
(i) General Knowledge & Current Affairs - 40
(ii) Subject Matters (Respective discipline) - 60 Total = 100
07. This pattern was duly notified in the website of the TPSC having reference to Adv. No.05/2016 in the form, as available at Annexure-6 to the writ petition. For purpose of reference, the entire text of the said notification [Annexure-6 to the writ petition] is extracted hereunder:Page 7 of 20
TRIPURA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION SCHEME OF SCREENING TEST FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POSTS OF LECTURER, DIPLOMA LEVEL TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS IN TRIPURA, GROUP-A GAZETTED UNDER EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPARTMENT, GOVT OF TRIPURA Ref:- Advertisement No.05/2016 (Item No-02) Name of the Paper & Pattern of Question for all subject/Discipline
1. Name of the Paper :- General Ability Test
2. Pattern of Question :- 100% MCQ type question Name of Subject Distribution of Marks
1. General Knowledge & Current Affairs - 40
2. Subject Matters (Respective discipline) - 60 Total = 100 # Note:-i) a) There will be four alternatives for the answer to every question. For each question for which a wrong answer has been given by the candidate, one-third of the marks assigned to that question will be deducted as penalty.
b) If a candidate gives more than one answer, it will be treated as a Wrong Answer even if one of the given answers happens to be correct and there will be same penalty as above to that question.
c) If a question is left blank, i.e. no answer is given by the candidate, there will be no penalty for that question.
ii) The answers are to be encoded in the OMR Answer Sheet by Black Ball Point Pen only.
Sd/ illegible JOINT SECRETARY TRIPURA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
08. The petitioner only came to know about the memorandum dated 30.07.2017 when he appeared for the interview-cum-personality test. By the memorandum No.F.9(40)/Con/Exam/TPSC/2016 dated 15.02.2016 issued by the respondent No.2, for the scheduled examination or the non-scheduled examination the following mode was Page 8 of 20 notified in respect of the personality test/ interview/ viva- voce test etc.
i) In case of Non-Scheduled Examination comprising Interview/Personality Test only, all eligible candidates will be called for Interview/Personality Test, if not otherwise decided by the Commission.
ii) a) The Commission follows the guideline
articulated in the Service Rules or
Recruitment Rules for calling a candidate to appear in the Interview-cum-Personality Test/Personality Test/ Viva-Voce in case of specified Scheduled Examination.
b) In the absence of any such guideline in the
Service Rules or Recruitment Rules,
Candidates are called for Personality
Test/Interview on the basis of the result of the Written Examination conducted in the form of Combined Competitive Examination OR Scheduled Examination OR Screening Test if so decided by the Commission (in case of Non-Scheduled Examination), in the following ratio, subject to attaining of qualifying marks (cut-off marks) if and where applicable.
Page 9 of 20
09. The memorandum under No.F.9(40)/Con/Exam/TPSC/2016 dated 15.02.2016 [Annexure-8 to the writ petition] provides for screening test in the non-scheduled examination. The said memorandum has further provided the number of candidates to be called for interview-cum-personality test against vacancies. Since these are not in controversy, this court is not going to dilate further of that procedure. The clause which is relevant in the present context is the principle which is to be followed for calling the candidates for personality test/interview/Viva-voce/type test/shorthand writing transcription test. First of all, if the candidates are not extremely large and the candidates who are eligible according to the requirement of the advertisement will be called for interview-cum-personality test. Further, in absence of any such guideline in the Service Rules or Recruitment Rules, Candidates are called for Personality Test/Interview on the basis of the result of the written examination conducted in the form of Combined Competitive Examination OR Scheduled Examination OR Screening Test if so decided by the Commission (in case of Non-Scheduled Examination), in the ratio as provided for calling the candidates to the interview.
10. The petitioner has challenged that procedure and urged this court to interfere in the said process by declaring that the memorandum dated 30.03.2017 cannot be applied Page 10 of 20 in the said selection process and also for quashing the memorandum No.F.9(40)/Con/Exam/TPSC/2016-1629 dated 30.03.2017 issued by the respondent No.2 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition] and directing the respondents to reallocate of the percentage of the marks for viva-voce test for the selection in the post of Lecturer, Diploma Level, Technical Institutions, Government of Tripura. It has been further urged that the respondents be directed to conduct a fresh interview for the post of Lecturer, Diploma Level, Technical Institution in terms of the call letter dated 21.10.2017 by excluding assessment of the Academic Performance Indicators (API) for selection to the post of Lecturer, Diploma Level, Technical Institutions, Government of Tripura.
11. The respondents No.2 and 3 by filing the reply have categorically stated that allocation of 25% marks for viva-voce test cannot be called as excessive and arbitrary. The respondents have further stated that the TPSC has decided to divide 100% marks for interview cum personality test in several heads for different selection process in which the Academic Performance Indicators derived from the Educational testimonials would be added. The change in the method was duly published in the official website before the screening test was held. In this regard, the said respondents have referred to the UGC regulation as notified on 18.09.2010. In the clause-6.0.1, the UGC has Page 11 of 20 recommended that weightage to the academic performance be provided and that would make the system more transparent and credible:
"In order to make the system more credible, universities may assess the ability for teaching and / or research aptitude through a seminar or lecture in a class room situation or discussion on the capacity to use latest technology in teaching and research at the interview stage. These procedures can be followed for both direct recruitment and CAS promotions wherever selection committees are prescribed in these Regulations."
The TPSC has adopted the said best practice in their recruitment procedure so that the amount of subjectivity can be regulated to the minimum level. They have categorically stated that the writ petition is bereft of any merit and it does not deserve further consideration by this court.
12. Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two prompt objections to question the change in the process after the employment advertisement was published viz. (i) after the selection process has commenced such change is absolutely arbitrary and seriously prejudicial to those who were appearing in the process, and (ii) that the said process as sought to be introduced by the memorandum dated 30.03.2017 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition] is fraught with irreconcilable contradictions. As a result, there would be possibility of injustice.
13. Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel at the outset has placed some documents from the website of the TPSC Page 12 of 20 viz. the notification under No.F.89(3)-TPSC/2007 dated 29.11.2007 which was according to Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner was in force at the time of issuing the advertisement. The said notification dated 29.11.2007 provides that in the case of non-schedule examination conducted by the TPSC, the final selection will be made in order of merit on the basis of marks obtained by candidates in aggregate adding the marks obtained in the screening test when the selection process will be made on the basis of screening test followed by interview. For purpose of reference, the entire text of the said notification is reproduced hereunder:
"In order to bring more transparency in selection process and due to introduction of OMR system, it is decided by the Commission that henceforth in case of non-scheduled Examinations the final selection will be made in order of merit on the basis of the marks obtained by a candidate in aggregate adding the marks obtained in the Screening Test when the selection process will be made on the basis of screening test followed by interview. This is for information to all concerned."
14. Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel has further referred another notification under No.F.12(45-1)- Web/TPSC/2015 dated 02.11.2015 by which the minimum cut-off marks for interview has been declared. For purpose of reference the said notification dated 02.11.2015 as relied by Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel is extracted hereunder:
"It is for information of all concerned that total marks allotted for Interview/Personality Test is 100 for direct recruitment to the posts through Non-Scheduled Examination.Page 13 of 20
A candidate must have to secure the qualifying marks in the interview [50(Fifty) marks for UR & 40(Forty) marks for SC,ST,PH, Ex-Serviceman] to be considered for final selection/recommendation.
The final selection/recommendation will be made in order of merit on the basis of total marks obtained by the candidates in the Screening Test and Interview/Personality Test.
OR On the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the Interview/Personality Test where no such Screening Test is conducted."
15. According to Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel, the notification dated 29.11.2017 and 02.11.2015 shall govern the entire procedure of recruitment and as such sudden change made by the memorandum dated 30.03.2017 is contrary to the fair action so far the recruitment in the public office is concerned. In support of that contention she has referred a few decisions of the apex court in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512. The apex court in K. Manjusree (supra) has laid down the principle in the following manner:
"33. The resolution dated 30.11.2004 merely adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore, extending the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interviews, in the selection process is impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee want to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the selection committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process, add an additional requirement that the candidates should also secure Page 14 of 20 minimum marks in the interview. What we have found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview."
16. Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel having placed reliance on K. Manjusree (supra) has contended that once the recruitment process has commenced there cannot be any change in the rules or the mode of recruitment. Such change is bound to be illegal in view of K. Manjusree (supra).
17. In Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi etc. reported in AIR 2008 SC 2103, which report has been relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the apex court has held that sudden change in the method after the recruitment process commenced was not permissible at all after the written test was conducted. The relevant passage from the report is gainfully reproduced hereunder:
"16. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the decision rendered in K.Manjusree (Supra) did not notice the decisions in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 as well as K.H.Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6 SCC 395 and therefore should be regarded either as decision per incuriam or should be referred to Larger Bench for reconsideration, cannot be accepted. What is laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent is that it is always open to the authority making the rules regulating the selection to prescribe the minimum marks both for written examination and interview. The question whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview after the entire selection process was completed was valid or nor, never fell for consideration of this Court in the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent. While deciding the case of K.Manjusree (Supra) the Court noticed the decisions in (1) P.K.Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 141; (2) Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 721; and (3) Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa (1987) 4 SCC 646, and has thereafter laid down the proposition of law which is quoted above. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case this Court is of the opinion that the decision rendered by this Court in K.Manjusree (Supra) can neither be regarded as Page 15 of 20 Judgment per incuriam nor good case is made out by the respondent for referring the matter to the Larger Bench for reconsidering the said decision."
18. Finally Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred a decision of the apex court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. And Others vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Others reported in (2001) 10 SCC 51 for the similar ratio. It has been laid down in the said report as under:
"6. We have held that the Circular Orders dated 24.6.1996 will have no relevance or application to the selections in question, undertaken pursuant to the advertisement issued on 20.9.1995. It has also been noticed by us that the Circular Order dated 4.4.1995, on the face of it, will apply only in cases where the selection has to be finalized on the basis of any Written Examination and Interview. There being no Written Examination for selection of Drivers for appointment, the selection process has to be on the basis of only Circular Orders dated 21.8.1980 and 23.1.1995. These aspects were left to lie in a nebulous state, leaving much for assumptions on either side to be possible. This should have been averted by the Corporation, by proper and appropriate action at the crucial and relevant point of time before setting the selection process in motion. It is high time that the Board takes up this for consideration resolve it by an appropriate decision. For such lapses, neither the candidates, who got selected and appointed, nor the Writ Petitioners, who lost in the selection, could be entirely blamed. The Writ Petitioners also have not chosen either to allege or substantiate any malafides or bias against any member of the Selection Committee, except making a grievance that within the course of the time available on a single day about 322 applicants could not have properly subjected to interview for assessment of merits or assignment of marks for selection. The learned counsel for the appellants would seek to place reliance upon the decisions of this Court reported in Sardara Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(1991)4 SCC 555] and Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of J & K & Ors. [(1995)3 SCC 486] to contend that such contentions are not sufficient to warrant interference with the selections made."
19. Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel has raised an ancillary point stating that the petitioner has passed from the North East Regional Institute of Science and Technology where the marks are given very conservatively in comparison to the other institute and as such when the API Page 16 of 20 would be considered the petitioner would eminently suffer prejudice as the TPSC does not follow any procedure of standardization.
20. Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the TPSC-respondents has submitted that the objection of the petitioner is structured on the hyper technicality inasmuch as the memorandum dated 30.03.2017 was issued before the screening test was held and as such there cannot be any objection hovering around prejudice to the petitioner and other candidates. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has further submitted that the memorandum dated 30.03.2017 which has its roots in the practice introduced by the University Grants Commission (the UGC in short) for better objectivity and for determining suitability in a more transparent manner. The statement of the petitioner that he could know about this change only on the day of interview-cum- personality test should not be believed inasmuch as it is expected that when someone applied for participating any competitive examination to be conducted by the TPSC, he would keep an eye on the official website of the TPSC for getting updated information about the examination. In this regard, Mr. Datta, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the clause-10 of the advertisement which clearly states as follows:
"For further details, read the "Instructions to candidates", in the prescribed Application Form and also Page 17 of 20 please visit the Website of the Commission- http://www.tpsc.gov.in."
21. Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has further submitted that for the interim order passed by this court on 10.11.2017 the selection process could not be drawn to its logical end. However, Mr. Datta, learned counsel has fairly submitted that the TPSC has filed an application being IA No.01 of 2017 for vacating the interim order and in pursuance thereto the hearing has been expedited by this court. In addition, Mr. Datta, learned counsel has referred two decisions of the apex court on estoppels by conduct. In Ramesh Chandra Shah and Others vs. Anil Joshi and Others reported in AIR 2013 SC 1613, the apex court having visited the precedent has observed that it is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around cannot question the method of selection and its outcome.
22. In V. Lavanya and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2017) 1 SCC 322, the apex court had occasion to observe as under:
"37. The appellants have also challenged G.O.Ms. 71, which was issued by the respondents pursuant to the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court. As already noted before, the Single Judge while declining the challenge to G.O.Ms. No. 252 and G.O.Ms. No. 25 had set aside the grading system adopted by the Government vide G.O.Ms. No. 252. The Single Judge observed that the grading system adopted in G.O.Ms. No. 252 lacks rationality as it places candidates with the difference of 1 to 9 percentage in the same basket. Accordingly, vide G.O.Ms.No. 71 the Government came up with the grading methodology as indicated supra in para No 10. The appellants have not only challenged the new grading system introduced by G.O. No. 71; but they have also Page 18 of 20 challenged the weightage of marks of 40% earmarked for academic performance. It is their contention that the Government has blindly accepted the recommendation of Single Judge without application of mind.
40. The appellants have maintained that while prescribing the marks for performance in Higher Secondary Examination, the respondents have failed to take into account different Education Boards (CBSE, ICSE, State Boards etc.) conducting Higher Secondary Examination and difference in their marks awarding patterns. As also, the appellants have alleged that respondents failed to consider different streams of education while formulating the grading pattern. It is submitted that unless and until the respondents take note of difference in marking scheme of Education boards, as also the marking scheme of different streams such as Arts, Science etc. a valid grading system cannot be formulated. Equivalence of academic qualifications is a matter for experts and courts normally do not interfere with the decisions of the Government based on the recommendations of the experts (vide University of Mysore v. CD Govinda Rao (1964) 4 SCR 575 and Mohd. Sujat Ali v. Union of India(1975) 3 SCC 76). We hold that it is the prerogative of State-Authorities to formulate a system whereby weightage marks is decided with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. In the present case, as no arbitrariness is proved on the part of the respondents, in formulating the grading system we cannot interfere with the same. We cannot be expected to go into every minute technicalities of decision taken by the experts and perform the job of the respondent-State. Moreover, the High Court has also noted that submission of learned Advocate General that almost all the appellants have completed their High Secondary examination from the State Boards."
In view of the above observation, this court would leave the matter of standardization of marks, in view of variant systems in the examinations, by giving weightage etc to the prerogative of the executive.
23. When Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the TPSC-respondents was asked to clarify how the clause- 3(B) of the memorandum dated 30.03.2017 can be adjusted with Clause-2, he had no immediate answer and perhaps he cannot have any answer at all. From a reading of the memorandum dated 30.03.2017, it surfaces that clause-2 provides that for non-scheduled examination the personality test for 100 marks to be divided into two parts namely Page 19 of 20 academic performance and viva-voce/interview and for each part, the marks which has been allocated is 50% but clause- 3(B) postulates that in case of recruitment through examination/screening test followed by the personality test the recommendation is to be made on the basis of the merit list being prepared by adding the marks obtained in examination/screening test to marks obtained in the personality test. If we go by clause-2 obviously clause-3(B) is excluded. However, clause-3(A) is harmonious to clause-2 of the said memorandum dated 30.03.2017 as it provides that in case of recruitment to certain post(s) by personality test only, the merit list is to be prepared on the basis of marks awarded by the Interview Board & API and recommendation will be made on the basis of the merit list subject to availability of vacancy. According to this court this memorandum not only set up such incompatible clause for that it becomes non-scheduled examination not workable for reasons as stated. Thus, unless the said memorandum is duly amended the former practice has to be followed and the former practice has been engrafted in the notification dated 29.11.2007. That apart, the apex court in Maharastra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Rajendra Mandve (supra) had similar occasion to observe that 'the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities Page 20 of 20 concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced.'
24. In view of what has been observed and what has been found from the records produced that the TPSC- respondents followed the procedure as engrafted in clause-2 of the said memorandum dated 30.03.2017. They shall, as consequence of the observation aobe, revisit their recommendation by cancelling what they have made up and thereafter shall make the necessary recommendation by following the notification dated 29.11.2007 for the post of Lecturer, Diploma Level in the Technical Institutions in Tripura.
In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Return the records filed by the TPSC-respondents under a sealed cover.
JUDGE Moumita