Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the issues raised in the present petition stands covered by the Single Judge order and/or the DB Order in Mahesh Kumar v. Union of India?

15. The Petitioners in Mahesh Kumar had applied for selection to the post of SAG-II in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat pursuant to an advertisement published in the Employment News on 22nd to 28th July 2006. The qualification requirement was no different from what it is in the present advertisement. The Petitioners qualified in the written examination and were called for interview, but they were finally not selected. They approached this Court with a writ petition challenging their non-selection. In the reply filed by the Respondents, it was pointed out that the Petitioners had not secured the prescribed 50% marks in the personal interview. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 therein had secured 9.34 and 11 marks respectively out of twenty-five, whereas the topper had secured 14.33 marks, and the last qualified candidate in the General Category had secured 15.01 marks. The contention of the Petitioners was that the personal interview could not be the sole determining factor in deciding the relative eligibility of a candidate for selection to a particular post and that the aggregate marks scored by a candidate in all the four stages/levels should be taken into consideration. It was contended that giving 50% weightage to interview marks amounts to giving 100% weightage and that the same is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The above contention was resisted by the Respondents on the ground that the allocation of marks for interview depended on the nature of service; that admission to service/post cannot be equated with the admission to an academic institution; that the process of selection was decided by the experts in the field and unless there were allegations of mala fides, the Court could not interfere. The question formulated by the learned Single Judge was "whether personal interview could be the determining factor in selecting the candidate to the post of Security Assistant Grade-II at Rajya Sabha after the written examination, physical measurement test and physical efficiency test and whether the selection on the basis of interview only is arbitrary and unconstitutional?" The learned Single Judge opined that "for recruitment to the post of security guard at the Rajya Sabhba only qualifying in the written test and physical test etc. may not suffice as for such posts, the ... behavior, mannerism, aptitude, communication skill cannot be overlooked and the same can be appropriately determined by way of an interview giving maximum weightage to it." It was held that "if aggregate of all the marks is taken into consideration as is being argued by the petitioner even though who has scored less marks in the interview may qualify to get the job on account of the better performance in the written test but he may not be a suitable candidate for the post if his personality and other traits are taken into consideration". It was held that if aggregate marks was made the criteria for selection, "it would amount to interfering with and diluting the entire selection process which will be beyond the jurisdiction of the court".

16. The learned Single Judge also negatived the contention that the prescribing of 50% as the cut-off mark for the personal interview was unreasonable or arbitrary. As regards not specifying the minimum qualifying marks for the interview in the advertisement itself, the learned Single Judge referred to the judgment in Siya Ram v. Union of India (1998) 2 SCC 566 in which the Supreme Court held that the determination of what should be the minimum qualification should be left to the experts and courts should not interfere unless exaggerated weight was given to the interview for proven or obvious motives. On the facts of the case before the court in Mahesh Kumar, the learned Single Judge found that the decision to assign minimum 50% marks for the interview was arrived at "in a thorough and scientific manner". The learned Single Judge also opined that "since, different marks were assigned for different facets of interview, not fixing minimum marks for the interview could also lead to disastrous results inasmuch as the candidates not having any manners and knowledge of duties involved in security service for which the total marks were only 23 would have become entitled for selection. With these detailed yardsticks as have been resolved by the respondents it is difficult to infer that oral interview in the present facts is not very satisfactory test for the job of SAG-II in Rajya Sabha."

17. The learned Single Judge held in Mahesh Kumar that prescribing a minimum cut-off for the skills in which marks were awarded in the interview could not be faulted. Fulfilling the minimum standards at each stage was the basis for selection and since the Petitioners failed to score the minimum qualifying marks in the interview, they could not be selected only because their aggregate marks were higher than the marks scored by the last selected candidate. The learned Single Judge further added that, "If the petitioners found marks to be arbitrary, they should have challenged the same at the very first instance. Instead Petitioners opted to take interview and only because the results of the interview is not favourable to them, they cannot turn round and contend that the minimum marks allocated for interview are arbitrary and that the process of selection is vitiated."