Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Gurmeet Singh vs Staff Selection Commission on 10 February, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
TA No.54 of 2013
New Delhi this the10th day of February, 2015
Honble Mr. Ashok Kumar, Member (A)
Honble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
Gurmeet Singh,
S/o Shri Gurcharan Singh,
At present
R/o Flat No.104,
First Floor, Near Mother Diary,
Vasant Apartments,
Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi-57
Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Himanshu Gupta)
VERSUS
Staff Selection Commission,
Through Under Secretary (C-1/1).
(CGL Exam.-2012)
Government of India,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-3
Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S.M.Arif)
O R D E R
Ashok Kumar, Member (A):
This application which was filed by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No.4854/2013), was transferred to the Tribunal vide order dated 02.08.2013 of the Honble Delhi High Court for determination in view of the provisions of Sections 14 and 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985.
2. The TA has been filed for quashing and setting aside the fixing of cut-off/minimum 20 marks by the respondents in the interview of Staff Selection Commission Combined Graduate Level Examination,2012 (SSC CGL, 2012); to consider and include/add the interview marks obtained by the applicant in the total marks obtained by him in written tests, namely Tier-I and Tier-II of CGL,2012 for the purpose of allotment of interview-post to him, and for preparation of a fresh merit list of candidates selected for interview-posts, irrespective of fixing any cut-off/minimum 20 marks in the interview.
3. Very briefly, facts are that the applicant appeared in CGL, 2012 in which he succeeded in Tier-I and Tier II examination vide the result declared and was called for interview on 27.12.2012 on that basis. Neither in the interview letter nor anywhere else conditions were prescribed for fixing cut-off/minimum 20 marks in the interview. His performance was very good in the interview. But when the result was published, the applicants name was recommended for appointment for non-interview post and did not find mention for appointment for interview post. Finally, on enquiry and also under RTI, applicant came to know that the respondent/SSC after conducting the Tier-I and Tier-II examination, as well as after holding the interview, at the stage of declaration of final result, laid down a new condition of scoring a minimum 20/cut off marks in the interview as eligibility for the examination for interview post. The applicant has, therefore, stated that such action of the respondents was arbitrary, malafide and caused prejudice to the applicant. He submitted written representation on 11.02.2013 which has not been decided as yet. It has also been stated that no such condition of cut off/minimum 20 marks or shortlisting of the candidates for interview post was prescribed for CGL, 2012.
4. The prayers made in the TA are as under:-
(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby quashing and setting aside the fixing of cut-off/minimum 20 marks by the Respondent herein in the interview of Staff Selection Commission Combined Graduate Level Examination,2012 (SSC CGL, 2012);
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondent herein to consider and include/add the interview marks obtained by the petitioner in the total marks obtained by him in written tests viz. Tier-I & Tier-II of SSC CGL, 2012 for the purpose of allotment of interview post to him;
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India direting the Respondent herein to prepare a fresh Merit List of candidates selected to interview posts after including/adding the interview marks obtained by them in the total marks obtained by him in written tests viz Tier-I & Tier-II of SSC CGL, 2012, irrespective of fixing any cut-off/minimum 20 marks in the interview;
(iv) award the costs of the present petition in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents; and
(v) pass such other and further order/orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.
5. Respondent-SSC have filed counter reply in the TA in which the facts are admitted and the reasons for introducing cut-off marks after the interview was held, are contained in paras G, H and I of the counter affidavit. It is further stated in para 4(m) of the counter reply that it is not necessary to state the minimum cut-off marks at which candidates will be selected in the call letter for interview. In para 4(o), it is also stated that the respondent/Commission has decided that for future examination the cut-off marks shall be prescribed at the discretion of the Commission.
6. Mr. Himanshu Gupta, counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.M. Arif, counsel for the respondents were heard. Applicants counsel referred to the grounds stated in the TA. Respondents counsel argued that SSC was justified in fixing a cut off marks of 20 for interview. It was not denied by the counsel for the respondent that the prescription of cut-off/minimum 20 marks for the interview was not notified in the notification for the examination or otherwise, and that this was done after the interview of the applicant had been held.
7. We have perused the pleadings and documents on record. We have also given due consideration to the arguments of both learned counsel.
8. It is apparent that the notification published by the SSC for the CGL, 2012, copy of which is available on record, did not stipulate cut-off/minimum 20 marks for interview nor did it prescribe for any modality of shortlisting of candidates. The Scheme of the examination thus did not contain any such provisions and para 9(C) at page 17 of the aforenoted Notification reads as follows:-
9( C) PERSONALITY/TEST INTERVIEW For posts for which Interview cum Personality Test is prescribed, the Personality Test/interview will carry a maximum of 100 marks.
NOTE-I: The interview will be held at the Commissions Regional/Sub Regional Offices of the Commission or at any other place as decided by the Commission.
NOTE-II: SC/ST candidates called for interview will be paid TA as per Govt. Orders. However, no TA is payable to any candidate for appearing in the written examination.
NOTE-III: Canvassing in any form will disqualify the candidate.
9. Similarly in para 12 under the heading Mode of Selection, relevant extracts of the provisions are reproduced below:-
A. After the examination and the Interview/Skill Test/Computer Proficiency Test, wherever applicable, the Commission will draw up the Al India Merit List for each category of post/State and s many candidates as are found by the Commission to have qualified in the Examination shall be recommended for appointment for each category of post/State up to the number of unreserved vacancies available, taking into consideration option for the posts.
The Commission will recommend the candidates in the Merit List on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and interview (whatever applicable) and preference exercised by the candidates in the Application Form for different Posts/States at the time of Tire II/Interview/Skill Test/Computer Proficiency Test depending o the num ber of vacancies available. Once the candidate has been given his/her first available preference, he/she will not be considered for the other options. Candidates are therefore advised to exercise preference in Application Form carefully and detailed options after Tire I examination. The option/preference once exercised by the Candidates will be treated as FINAL and IRREVERSIBLE. Subsequent request for change of allocation/service by candidates will not be entertained under any circumstances/reasons.
10. It is clear that in the absence of any condition notified by the SSC to short-list candidates, or to fix minimum /cut-off marks for interview, there was no enabling provision for SSC to fix cut-off/minimum 20 marks for interview. This could not have been done as per the various judgments of the Honble Supreme Court laid down on the subject. The Honble Supreme Court in Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi (AIR 2008 SC 2103) have in paragraph 9 of their judgment in a similar matter of prescription of cut-off marks after the process of selection had commenced, has held as follows:-
9.From the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned case it is evident that previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for vive-voce. Therefore, prescribing minimum marks for vive-voce was not permissible at all after written test was conducted. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and vive-voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for vive-voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at vive-voce, test was illegal. (emphasis supplied)
11. Similarly in the matter of K.Manjusree Vs. State of A.P. and Anr. (AIR 2008 SC 1470), the Honble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 24 as follows:-
24. But what could not have been done was the second change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the interview. The minimum marks for interview had never been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for selection of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In regard to the present selection, the Administrative Committee merely adopted the previous procedure in vogue. The previous procedure as stated above was to apply minimum m arks only for written examination and not for the oral examination. We have referred to the proper interpretation of the earlier resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002 and held that what was adopted on 30.11.2004 was only minimum marks for written examination and not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. (emphasis supplied)
12. In view of the aforenoted judgments and the facts stated above, it is clear that the respondents in the instant matter were not entitled to fix any cut off/minimum 20 marks for interview after the written examinations and interviews were held for a candidate to be eligible for selection for interview-post in terms of the mode of selection notified by the SSC for CGL, 2012, specially Para 12 of the notification. Such action of the respondents is not legally sustainable and is quashed and set aside.
13. The respondents are directed to publish the result of the applicant for the interview post on the basis of total marks obtained by him in the written test of Tier I and Tier II of SSC CGL.2012 plus the marks obtained by him in the interview, without any cut-off/minimum 20 marks in the interview. If the applicant is found to be selected on pure merit as per the result of the examination, consequential action for recommending the applicant for appointment shall be taken by the respondents. This exercise shall be completed within 10 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. TA is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Ashok Kumar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/usha/