Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. In the instant case also, the percentage of minimum qualifying marks in the written examination mentioned in the advertisement in question, i.e., 50%, was reduced by the selection committee/Full Court by is resolution dated 8.1.2004 after going through the result sheet of the candidates who appeared in the written examination and further decision was taken by the Committee/Full Court in its meetings dated 7.2.2004 and 8.2.2004 fixing minimum qualifying marks in the interview/viva voce test at 12 out of 30.

25. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has also cited some cases out of which in the case of Majeet Singh v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Anr. , the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any prescription of qualifying marks for the interview test the prescription of 40% as applicable for the written examination seemed to be reasonable.

The point of consideration in the instant case is quite different from the above case as in the instant selection the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination was fixed at 50% as mentioned in the advertisement, but after preparation of result sheet of the written examination the minimum qualifying marks were lowered down. Hence, the main question before this Court for consideration is whether the norms could be lowered down in such circumstances specially when no amendment/modification or corrigendum was published subsequent to the advertisement in question. Further, in the instant matter no cut off marks were fixed for interview/viva voce test before starting of process of selection. If it is presumed that the same prescription was also to be applicable for viva voce test, in such an event, most of the candidates, who were declared selected would have been out of the select list. Moreover, the selection committee had fixed the minimum qualifying marks for interview later on after awarding marks in the written test of the candidates. Therefore, this was not a case where no cut off marks were awarded in the interview. It is the view of the Apex Court that where the result sheet is prepared on the basis of the cut off marks fixed by the selection committee for the interview at a later state i.e., after preparation of the result sheet of marks awarded in the written test the same is likely to be not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Majeet Singh (supra) would not be applicable to the instant case.

29. In the result, the Writ Application is allowed in part. The decision of the Committee/Full Court dated 8.1.2004 lowering down the minimum percentage of qualifying marks in the written examination from 50% to that of 35% in each paper and 40% in aggregate, and the decision dated 7.2.2004, and 8.2.2004 fixing minimum qualifying marks in viva voce test/interview are quashed. Hence, the selection of those opposite parties who had secured less than 50% marks in each paper of the written examination namely, opposite party No. 6-Shyam Sundar Das, opposite party No. 8-Santosh Kumar Jena, opposite party No. 9-Devi Prasad Mohapatra, opposite party No. 10-Rabindra Kumar Pattnayak, opposite party No. 11 -Samarendra Kumar Das, opposite party No. 12-Bijay Kumar Purohit, opposite party No. 13-Biswajit Mohapatra, opposite party No. 14-Pradeep Kumar Mahanta, opposite party No. 15-Bijay Kumar Panigrahi, opposite party No. 16-Badal Bihari Pattanaik, opposite party No. 17-Purna Chandra Panda, opposite party No. 18-Bijay Kumar Jena is quashed. Consequently, their orders of appointment issued by the Government of Orissa, vide notification dated 26.7.2004, as Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Courts are also quashed.