Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(4) Since, for a long period, vacancies attributable to direct recruitment were not filled up, a few Junior Engineers filed Writ Petitions and as a result of which the impugned selections were made.

(5) According to the petitioners the "two years professional experience" referred as a qualification, has to be an experience after being a graduate in Civil Engineering or its equivalent. In the instant case, several selectees lacked this 2 years experience, and admittedly, their experiences gained prior to being graduates also were considered. It is also contended that during the past years, the allocable marks at the selection were . (i) for Degree 10 (40%); (ii) for experience 10 (40%) and (iii) Interview 5 (20%). This is altered for the first time in the impugned selection process by allocating (i) 10 to the degree (33-1/3%); (ii) for experience 5 (16-2/3%) and (iii) interview 15 (50%). Petitioners attack this as wholly arbitrary and opposed to the settled principle that marks for the interview should not exceed 12 to 25% of the total marks as otherwise, a high percentage of marks for interview would vest arbitrary powers of selection with the Selection Committee. Some of the petitioners have alleged that a few of the selectees are related to high officers of the 1st respondent and for this purpose also, a higher percentage is allocated for interview.

(18) Selections of the appointees were made on the basis of the marks allotted to them. Out of the total of 30 marks maximum 10 marks were for the Degree, 5 for the experience and 15 for the interview. Thus, the interview had 50% of the total marks. This is attacked as arbitrary and that this enabled the selection committee to favor the selectees. Petitioners point out that prior to the year 1989, out of the total marks of 25, 10 were kept for degree, 10 for experience and 5 for interview; thus the interview represented only 20% of the total marks; the deviation from the earlier practice and enhancing the role of the interview was without any reason or basis.

Thereafter, the court referred to two earlier decisions and the marks allocated for interviews at other competitive examinations, such as Ias and then held - "WEmust, therefore, regard the allocation of as high a percentage as 33-1/3 of the total marks for the oral interview as infecting the admission procedure with the vice of arbitrariness and selection of candidates made on the basis of such admission procedure cannot be sustained."

(22) However, having regard to the lapse of time, the court did not exercise its discretion to set aside the selections made. The following observations of the Supreme Court are also relevant in the context of the present petitioner's case. In the same page (502) the court observed : "THE chart does create a strong suspicion in our mind that the marks awarded at the viva voce examination might have been manipulated with a view to favoring the candidates who ultimately came to be selected, but suspicion cannot take the place of proof and we cannot hold the plea of malafides to be established. We need much more cogent material before we can hold that the Committee deliberately manipulated the marks at the viva voce examination with a view to favoring certain candidates as against the petitioners. We cannot, however, fail to mention that this is a matter which required to be looked into very carefully and not only the State Government, but also the Central Government which is equally responsible for the proper running of the college, must take care to see that proper persons are appointed on the interviewing committee and there is no executive interference with their decision making process. We may also caution the authorities that though, in the present case, for reasons which we have already given, we are not interfering with the selection for the academic year 1979-80, the selections made for the subsequent academic years would run the risk of invalidation if such a high percentage of marks is allocated for the oral interview. We are of the view that, under the existing circumstances, allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to struck down as constitutionally invalid."

(23) In the above decision, the Supreme Court was comparing the percentage of marks allocated for interview as against the written test held, and ultimately held that allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for oral interview would be arbitrary. It was not a case of selecting the candidates for appointment to responsible positions where written test is not held.

(24) In Mohinder Sain Garg Vs. State of Punjab and others; , the court held the allocation of 25% of marks for interview as excessive.