Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the procedure adopted by the appellants can neither said to be against the provisions of the Recruitment Rules of 1963, nor the criteria and the procedure of selection prescribed in the advertisement. He would submit that on 24.04.2019, it was resolved under Agenda No. 4 in the meeting of the Public Service Commission that in future classification of weightage marks of 20 would be according to the category of posts. Learned Advocate General would further submit that it is not a case where such procedure was adopted only in respect of the present process of selection. He would submit that criteria for shortlisting after screening test/objective type test is not required to be expressly mentioned in the advertisement and it is always open for the Public Service Commission to evolve its own internal process of shortlisting and unless it is found to be against the express provisions of the Recruitment Rules of 1963 or the terms of the advertisement, it is not open to challenge. He would further submit that the decision of the appellants to call the candidates for interview on the basis of the marks obtained in the screening test/objective type test without adding weightage marks of academics is based on sound principles with regard to fairness that the candidates should be first subjected to the process of screening test/objective type test and interview which is common to all the candidates and thereafter, weightage marks of academics have to be added as the candidates' performance in their respective academic field is [2022/RJJP/002787] (19 of 38) [SAW-568/2022] not based on any common pattern of examination but on variable standards which could not be made a basis at the initial stage of recruitment for shortlisting the candidates before calling them for interview.

17. The process of selection apparently involves assessment of merit of the candidates on three counts, namely, marks obtained in screening test, weightage marks of academics and the marks obtained in interview. It also makes it clear that the selection is based on marks out of 100 marks obtained by each candidate. 40 marks are allotted for screening test/objective type test, 20 marks for academics and 40 marks for interview.

18. However, the aforesaid process of selection and criteria neither expressly, much less impliedly states that before calling the candidates for interview, weightage marks of academics had to be first added to the marks obtained in screening test/objective type test and then only, [2022/RJJP/002787] (27 of 38) [SAW-568/2022] shortlisting of the candidates has to be done for the purpose of calling them for interview. Though, the respondents-writ petitioners have alleged in the writ petition that the Public Service Commission committed illegality in not preparing the list categorywise as there is reservation of posts specified in the advertisement, the returns of the appellants- respondents in the writ petitions show that categorywise list has been prepared by the respondents. This specific stand taken by the appellant- RPSC in its return has not been disputed by the respondents-writ petitioners, narrowing the controversy involved in the present case.

23. The next issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the procedure evolved by the Public Service Commission to call the candidates for interview without adding weightage marks of academics [2022/RJJP/002787] (29 of 38) [SAW-568/2022] can be held to be otherwise, unfair, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Certainly, the Public Service Commission had two options. One which has been adopted and the other was to first add weightage marks of academics in the marks obtained in the screening test/objective type test and thereafter, shortlist the candidates in the ratio of 1:3 for the purpose of interview. The material on record, particularly the decision taken on 24.04.2019 clearly shows that the Public Service Commission decided that the weightage marks of academics shall be added only after interview. That means the decision was not to take into consideration the weightage marks of academics before calling the candidates for interview. The decision of the Public Service Commission to call the candidates for interview based only on their performance in the screening test/objective type test cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational or oppose to fair procedure so as to say that it would not withstand the scrutiny on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said decision is based on the consideration that the candidates would be first subjected to stages of selection comprising of screening test/objective type test and interview on comparative merit basis and thereafter, weightage marks for academics would be granted. Such a preference to this mode of selection than the other mode of selection as suggested by the respondents-writ petitioners, is far more consistent with the principles of fair play and rationality because the mode of selection adopted by the Public Service Commission ensures selection based on comparative merit on the basis of screening test/objective type test and interview to which all the candidates are subjected to irrespective of their background and variable standards of [2022/RJJP/002787] (30 of 38) [SAW-568/2022] examinations through which they have passed and obtained marks in their respective academic courses.

26. The aforesaid decisions lay emphasis on adjudging merit and suitability of the candidates on comparative basis through common test rather than giving preference to a method of selection based only on academic performance which is of variable standards. If the appellant- Public Service Commission has chosen to adopt the procedure of testing the candidates on comparative basis firstly through screening test/objective type test followed by interview and then allow weightage marks of academics to be added for the preparation of final merit list, in our considered opinion, this choice of the Public Service Commission to adopt the procedure as against the procedure claimed by the respondents-writ petitioners, cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational, unfair and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, tested on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to [2022/RJJP/002787] (32 of 38) [SAW-568/2022] hereinabove, the procedure of selection adopted by the Public Service Commission is consistent with the fairness by subjecting the candidates on comparative merit through screening test/objective type test followed by interview.