Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: maximum marks for interview in Dr.Smitha Chacko vs State Of Kerala on 1 September, 2022Matching Fragments
3. In terms of the notification, the candidates were required to submit applications in the prescribed form disclosing their credentials. The applicants were also directed to indicate the score claimed by them for the various parameters prescribed for short-listing as contained in Table 3B of Appendix II. In the tabular form prescribed for the said purpose, it was indicated that the maximum marks for the interview would be
20. It is seen that the said tabular form was later modified by the University in terms of U.O.No.2999/ACL/2021/MGU dated 30.06.2021. Even in the tabular form introduced in terms of the said order, the maximum marks to be awarded for the interview was fixed as 20. The petitioner as also the eighth respondent applied for selection pursuant to Ext.P4 notification. Ext.P5 is the application submitted by the petitioner on 30.05.2021. The petitioner was issued a communication by the fourth respondent on 16.10.2021 directing her to appear for the interview scheduled on 16.11.2021. Ext.P6 is the said communication. Later on 30.10.2021, the University issued Ext.P7 University Order raising the marks to be awarded for the interview to 50 from 20, in modification of U.O.No.2999/ACL/2021/MGU dated 30.06.2021. The split up of the marks to be awarded for the interview are also shown in Ext.P7 University Order, criterion-wise. In terms of Ext.P7, the marks to be awarded for teaching aptitude is 10, for research aptitude is 20, for domain knowledge is 10, for presentation/communication/ discussion skills is 5 and for innovative teaching skills is 5. The interview for the subject selection was conducted in accordance with Ext.P7 University Order and the eighth respondent was selected for appointment against the vacancy notified. Pursuant to the selection, the eighth respondent was appointed and she is working as Assistant Professor in Hindi in Catholicate College, Pathanamthitta under the fourth respondent.
20. Question (iii): The fact that the maximum marks to be awarded for the interview at the time of notification was 20 is not disputed. It is after the candidates were called upon to appear for the interview that the University has modified the said prescription and a different assessment criteria and methodology was adopted in terms of Ext.P7 University Order. While the earlier order prescribes 20 marks for the interview without indicating any specific heads for awarding the same, Ext.P7 University Order not only raises the maximum marks to be awarded for the interview to 50, but also prescribes the different heads under which the said 50 marks are to be awarded. The question is whether it is permissible for the University to change the criteria for awarding marks for the interview after the commencement of the selection process. The petitioner asserts that it is not permissible for the University to change the maximum marks to be awarded for the interview in a selection process after the commencement of the selection process without informing the candidates about the change brought in. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is that the principle that the rules of the game cannot be altered after the commencement of the game, applies squarely to a situation of this nature.
Reverting to the facts, the Regulations give only a broader idea of the criteria and it leaves to the concerned University to precisely fix the criteria for the interview having regard to the broad criteria specified in the Regulations. In other words, in the case on hand, the University was well within its authority to fix the criteria for the interview any time before the interview, having regard to the parameters specified in Appendix II. That apart, the maximum marks prescribed by the University to be awarded in the interview in a case where the selection is solely based on their performance in the interview does not affect in any manner the rights, if any, of the participants, much less their constitutional right to equal treatment. The maximum marks to be awarded for the interview in such cases would remain to be a matter within the exclusive domain of the employer to be fixed for the purpose of finding out the best suitable candidate in the selection. If it is taken that the University is free to fix the maximum marks to be awarded in the interview and the criteria under which the said marks are to be awarded, in a case where the performance in the interview is the sole basis for the selection, the question that remains to be considered is as to whether there is any illegality in applying the modified criteria in the selection process commenced prior to the modification. As noted, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is based on the principle that the rules of the game shall not be changed after commencement of the game. The said principle is one evolved based on the doctrine of equality adumbrated in our constitutional scheme, and same will not have any application in cases where none of the rights of the participants, much less their constitutional rights, are affected on account of the procedure which is impugned in the proceedings. Again, the petitioner has no case that any prejudice has been caused to her on account of the said change. If at all there was any prejudice, all participants in the selection process would have been subjected to the same prejudice and the petitioner cannot contend that there is infringement of any of her rights. We are fortified by the aforesaid stand also for the reason that the question whether the principle not to permit the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the rules of recruitment after the commencement of the recruitment process in order to avoid manipulations in the recruitment process would stand in the way of conducting a more rigorous selection to protect the interests of the establishment, is referred to a larger Bench for consideration by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2013) 4 SCC
3. If the total number of eligible candidates is less than 15 for 'open' or 'reserved' post, all those candidates belonging to that category may be shortlisted for interview.
4. All the eligible candidates short listed as per the above criteria may be called for interview.
5. In the case of affiliated colleges, the number of candidates to be short listed for interview may be decided by the college concerned. It is suggested that the college may adopt the procedure formulated for the selection of assistant professors in University academic Departments/Schools as detailed above. However, while short listing candidates for interview a minimum of 10 candidates may be short listed for each post and the maximum number may be decided by the college concerned. If the number of applicants is less than 10, all eligible applicants may be called for interview." The Maximum marks fixed for the interview shall be Fifty (50) and the split up of marks to be awarded in the interview may be based on the following components as envisaged in the UGC regulations: