Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Petitioners, in this bunch of writ petitions, are aggrieved by their non-selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Statistical Officer as they have failed to secure minimum marks in the interview. The jurisdiction of Public Service Commission to fix minimum marks for qualifying interview is primarily questioned in all the writ petitions. All the petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Writ Petition No.14179 of 2019 (Nagesh Chandra Kesharwani and 26 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 11 Others) is taken as the lead case.

14. In view of the discussions made above and in light of the stand taken by the Commission, as also the statement of their senior counsel that Commission shall scrupulously comply with it, this writ petition is consigned to records."

4. The Commission, accordingly, revisited the issue of eligibility in light of the observations made by this Court in the case of Shrawan Kumar (supra). Upon a careful examination the Commission found only 198 candidates to be eligible for appointment. The Commission accordingly subjected only 198 eligible candidates to face interview. Only 142 out of those 198 eligible candidates were found suitable by the Commission for appointment. The suitability for appointment has been judged on the basis of 40% minimum marks secured at the interview for unreserved and OBC candidates, while 35% marks for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates. Selection has been made of 142 suitable candidates alone. Petitioners are essentially aggrieved by this decision of the Commission. According to petitioners all candidates who have qualified the screening test and are found eligible are liable to be selected, inasmuch as the Commission lacks any power/jurisdiction to fix minimum marks in interview for adjudging suitability of candidate concerned. According to petitioners the applicable service rules do not confer any jurisdiction upon the Commission to fix minimum marks at the interview for adjudging suitability of candidate for selection to the post in question.

22. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that Recruitment Rules of 2012, as also the Procedure & Conduct of Business Rules of 2011, do not vest jurisdiction in the Commission to fix minimum marks at the stage of interview for a candidate to be selected for appointment. Sri Khare has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Durgacharan Misra Vs. State of Orissa and others, (1987) 4 SCC 646, to submit that in the absence of express power conferred in the rules the Commission cannot fix any minimum marks to be secured at interview. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and others Vs. State of Orissa and others, AIR 1996 SC 352. With reference to para 35 to 38, it is firmly contended that the Commission at its own level was denuded of any jurisdiction to lay down standards for adjudging suitability when the rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India do not contemplate so.

32. The argument advanced by Sri G.K. Singh appears to have force, inasmuch as the suitability of a candidate for selection has to be on a rational and objective criteria consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration or else the selection itself would be open to challenge on the ground of violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is in this context that correspondence appears to have taken place way back in 1966 between the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Commission. The State Government vide its Government Order dated 30th September, 1966 has clarified that a minimum standard of fitness consistent with maintenance of efficiency of administration has to be maintained for all candidates including reserved category candidates. A direction, consequently, has been issued to the Commission to fix minimum standard of fitness consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration for all candidates and accordingly determine suitability of candidates for selection. The adherence to the criteria of minimum standard of fitness consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration is also in respect of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates to the extent of seats reserved for them, even though they may be inferior to that of the last general candidate selected against the non-reserved seats. It is in this context and for fulfilling the constitutional mandate that the Commission has fixed 40% minimum marks to be secured at interview and/or in the written papers. The decision of the Commission is otherwise not an independent decision but is based upon the direction of the State Government. The minimum marks fixed for adjudging suitability, otherwise, is not shown to be arbitrary and is clearly consistent with the constitutional mandate imposed upon the Commission to select suitable candidate for appointment.