Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1) The action of the respondent in not conferring IAS to the applicant is illegal and arbitrary;

2) The Respondents have adopted a procedure which is not contemplated under the Rules;

3) The action of the Respondents in allocating 50% of the marks for interview is illegal and arbitrary;

4) The action of the Respondents in adopting the procedure which is not contemplated under any rules is illegal and arbitrary;

5) The action of the respondents is therefore illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India;

(c) giving more credit to marks at interview than the marks awarded for service record / track record is arbitrary and unreasonable and is therefore violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India ; and

(d) allocation of 50% marks to interview is arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and direct not to allocate more percentage of marks for interview than that is being allocated in the case of direct recruitment to the I.A.S.

12. The issues that arise for consideration are (i) whether the procedure adopted by the Committee for making selection of non-SCS to the extent of holding interview is arbitrary and illegal; (ii) whether allocation of 50% marks for interview is arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; (iii) whether giving more credit to marks at interview than the marks awarded for service / track record is arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; (iv) whether the non-inclusion of the applicant in the select list in pursuance of the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee at its meeting held on 31.12.2007 is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and (v) to what relief, if any, is the applicant entitled.

In the case of All India State Bank Officers Federation and Others Vs. Union of India & Others (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that prescribing even 60% marks for the interview was neither arbitrary nor unjust. The relevant paragraphs from the judgment are extracted below :-

"It was also contended that prescribing of 60 per cent marks for the interview as an eligibility criteria was arbitrary, unfair and unjust. It was further submitted that the percentage of marks in viva voce should not have been more than 15 per cent.