Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"14. It is an admitted position that at the beginning of the selection process, no minimum cut off marks for vive-voce were prescribed for Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2006. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration of the Court is whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process was completed would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. This Court notices that in Civil Appeal No. 1313 of 2008 filed by K.Manjusree against the State of A.P. and Anr. decided on February 15, 2008, the question posed for consideration of this Court in the instant petitions was considered and answered in the following terms:
"33. The resolution dated 30.11.2004 merely adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore, extending the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interviews, in the selection process is impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee want to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the selection committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process, add an additional requirement that the candidates should also secure minimum marks in the interview. What we have found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview."

19. In the case of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra) relied upon by the respondent, once again it was not a case that there was no selection criteria which were fixed. The selection criteria was a statutory requirement in terms of Section 8(3)(c) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act,1960 and which was of five years practice as an Advocate or Pleader for being appointed as a Presiding Officer. The selection criteria therefore having been prescribed after completion of the selection process, the criteria was raised to 7 years in order to cut down and limit the number of candidates who have to be called for the interview. Surely, this is permissible because no one can quarrel with the proposition that after certain number of candidates are held to have passed on account of passing marks being prescribed, thereafter, out of those candidates who have passed only a particular number of candidates can be called otherwise the selection process can become very time consuming and unnecessarily long. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in para 6 of the judgment in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra) observed that process of short-listing shall not amount to altering or substituting the eligibility criteria given in the statutory rules or prospectus because in the statutory rules and the prospectus issued for selecting the Presiding Officer the eligibility criteria was in fact specified and it is not a case that eligibility criteria before conduct of the examination was not specified in the statutory rules or the prospectus. In para 10 of the judgment in the case of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra) reference is made to the case of State of Haryana Vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha (1974) 3 SCC 220, and which para has been relied on behalf of the respondent, but, a reading of that para shows that there was prescribed eligibility criteria of a candidate obtaining 45% or more marks in the competitive examination to become eligible for appointment. Therefore, once again the eligibility criteria was prescribed in the case of Subhash Chander (supra). In fact if we refer to para 13 in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra) case the Supreme Court distinguished the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case of Praveenkumar Trivedi v. Public Service Commission, M.P 3(1986) Lab 1C 1990 (MP) on the ground that in the facts of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra), selection was to be made purely on the basis of interview and therefore, the Supreme Court observed that where selection is to be made purely on the basis of interview and if the applications for such posts are large in number when taken with reference to the number of posts available to be filled up, then, the Selection Board has an entitlement to short list the applicants to be called and which can be done on a rationale and reasonable basis.

26(i). That leaves us on the aspect of the relief to be granted to the petitioners in the present case. One way is that the entire selection list can be quashed and which could have been done if there were almost all or many many unsuccessful candidates before this Court. Also, may be in the facts of a particular case the list could be quashed especially when selection process is still under way and is not concluded. In the present case however the selection process is completed. By the selection list however only a limited number of candidates i.e 75 out of 112 have been appointed to their posts. Therefore, there will be no purpose of quashing the entire selection list not only because selection process stands completed and certain candidates stand appointed, but also additionally because of the reason that there are only a limited number of aspirants before this Court as petitioners and for whom there are otherwise sufficient vacancies available in terms of the subject advertisement. As per the admitted position which appears before me, in the General Category there are 9 posts which are vacant, in the SC Category there are 8 posts which are vacant, in the ST Category there are 9 posts which are vacant and in the OH Category, there are three posts which are vacant. I have before me five petitioners in the present writ petition and of which two are in General Category, one is in ST Category, one is in the SC Category and one is in the PH/OH Category. These persons therefore will be entitled to appointment in the posts of Manager (Electronics) in the published balance vacancies subject of course to the condition that no other person who is higher in seniority/rank in the selection list wants appointment with the respondent in the post of Manager (Electronics) in the different categories as stated above. It will be therefore necessary that before the respondent gives appointments to the petitioners, respondent will have to send intimation letters to the candidates who are higher in rank than the petitioners in the selection list in the different categories. If any of those candidates who are higher in rank than the petitioners in the selection list, want to be appointed as Manager (Electronics) with the respondent, then the rights of such higher ranked candidates to be appointed will be in preference to the rights of the petitioners, subject however, to the condition that such persons will be given a specific reasonable time by the respondent to join, and if they do not join, their posts can thereafter be given to the petitioners in the respective categories. Accordingly, let the necessary process of intimation to the persons who are higher in rank than the petitioners now take place, giving such persons reasonable date of joining if they want appointment. Other necessary steps, if so required in this regard be also taken by the respondent. The needful be done within a period of three months from today.