Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

What was represented through the said advertisement was that the selection will be on the basis of overall performance in the written test and interview. Under the head "written test", Paper- II was of qualifying nature and was not to be counted for ranking. Having qualified in Paper -II minimum qualifying marks on each part of paper I (as the Corporation may fix at its discretion) was to be assessed. According to the advertisement, thus, the respondent L.I.C. had arrogated to itself the discretion to fix minimum qualifying marks in the written test only. The respondents after conclusion of selection process comprising in two parts decided to fix a cut off marks which, according to petitioner, will tantamount to change the rules of game and thus unfair and arbitrary in the eye of law. In this connection, petitioner has relied on information furnished by the respondent LIC under R.T.I. Act (Annexure-6) to show that after the interview was over a proposal was mooted on 22.10.2009 to fix a cut off mark for the interview also for finalizing the final merit list. The said proposal was finally approved by the competent authority. To substantiate the said point reliance has been placed on the following reported judgments:-

From the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, it appears the core issue is whether the respondent LIC acted in unfair and arbitrary manner in fixing cut off marks for the interview before finally selecting the candidates for appointment to the post(s) of AAO in the respondent Corporation. In the case of K. Manjusree (Supra) the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was dealing with recruitment for the posts of District and Sessions Judge (Grade-II) which was governed by the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Rules. The said Rule prescribed quota and educational qualification but did not prescribe any other criterion for selection. The said criterion for selection was governed by resolutions which prescribed 75 marks for written tests and 25 for interview. The said criteria was followed but while holding written examination, 100 marks were prescribed instead of 75. The High Court (on administrative side) made two changes after written examination and interviews were over. First, marks obtained by candidates at the written examination were proportionately scaled down so as to maintain ratio between the written examination and interview as 3:1 It also introduced minimum qualifying marks for interview which caused reshuffling of selection list. The Supreme Court permitted the aforesaid change of scaling down the marks to maintain 3:1 ratio but found fault with second change introduced in the shape of introduction of criterion of minimum marks for the interview, taking into account that such criteria for interview had never been adopted by the High Court earlier for the selection to the post of District and Sessions Judges (Grade II). Accordingly, the Hon‟ble Apex Court relying on the judgment of Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa, (1987) 4 SCC 646 and Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve, (2001) 10 SCC 51, held that the respondents were not justified in changing the rules of the game after the game had been played and the result of the game were being awaited. The same was held to be totally unacceptable and impermissible. (refer paras 31 and 32 of the report). In the case of Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi (Supra) the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was again dealing with process of recruitment to Delhi Higher Judicial Service wherein the advertisement disclosed only minimum qualifying marks in the written test examination. After holding the first stage of selection process i.e. written test, the interview of the selected candidate was deferred and, in the meantime, selection committee resolved to prescribe minimum/ cut off marks for the viva voce which was placed before the full Court which approved 55% as the minimum qualifying marks in viva voce for the General candidates and 50% for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates.. Thereafter interview of the candidates was held and result was published. The writ petitioner was not declared successful and on her application it was informed that she was not selected since she did not obtain minimum qualifying marks at the viva- voce test. The Hon‟ble Apex Court again posed a question 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. Relying on the ratio laid down in K. Manjusree (Supra) the Hon‟ble Court found fault with the said imposition/ application of applying of minimum cut off marks at the interview and granted relief to the petitioner.

In the case at hand, the respondents having concluded written test ( stage I) and the interview (stage II) mooted a proposal for imposition of minimum cut off marks in the interview which was approved after the interview of the candidate was over. The present case, therefore, is better placed than the case of the petitioner of 2008(3) PLJR 378 SC ( Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi). On perusal of the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement, it appears that the respondent L.I.C. represented therein that in the selection process qualifying subject is paper- II and the marks obtained in paper I will be considered for selecting candidates for interview. The Corporation shall have full right to apply minimum qualifying marks in each part of paper I as the Corporation may fix at its discretion. There is no whisper or indication or term or condition spelt out therein that the respondents shall also have the discretion to apply a minimum cut off marks at the interview to select the best. As seen above, after the interview was over the respondents mooted a proposal to fix a cut off mark which was approved by the competent authority on 22.10.2009 whereby, 10 out of 28 was fixed as the cut off mark for the General/OBC candidates and 09 out of 28 was fixed as the cut off marks for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidate(s). From the pleadings on record, it can be deduced that it is not the case of the respondents LIC that in the previous selection process they had adopted the criteria of fixing a cut off mark at the interview. This Court, thus, finds that neither the stipulation made in the advertisement nor the established procedure in the matter of selection of A.A.O admit of applying any cut off mark at the interview in selecting a candidate based on selection procedure comprising of written test and interview. Petitioner, in the rejoinder, has stated that in the subsequent advertisement for the same post respondent L.I.C. have come with a clear condition/stipulation that candidate will have to qualify in the written test and interview. Annexure-8 to the rejoinder is the advertisement issued by the respondent L.I.C. for recruitment to the post of AAO. Clause (v ) and (vi) whereof read as under:-

"v. Inter view.

The number of candidates to be called for interview will be about three times the number of vacancies to be filled in subject to availability of successful candidates in the written test and will be purely as per the ranking list ( total marks obtained in Paper I). Candidates will have to obtain the minimum marks as will be decided by the corporation in the interview. Candidates who do not obtain the minimum qualifying marks as decided shall be excluded from the selection process.