Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The written test for the post was held on 27.09.2012 and on the same date, a list of 12 candidates who were shortlisted for the interview was published as per Annexure-A3 dated 27.09.2012. The name of the petitioner figures as Sl.No.7. Thereafter, on 28.09.2012, the shortlisted candidates were subjected to interview and group discussion. On 28.09.2012 itself, the rank list was published as per Annexure-A4 and the petitioner was placed at 4th rank with 115 marks.

5. Respondents 4 to 6 were ranked 1 to 3 respectively in Annexure-A4 rank list and the 7th Respondent is the 5th rank holder. Although 4th Respondent was placed first, she did not accept the post for the apparent reason that the posting was in  Pittapally, Odisha and consequently the post was filled up by appointing the 5th Respondent. It was challenging the said action of Respondents 2 and 3, petitioner filed O.A. No.1215 of 2012, basically contending that the selection process conducted by Respondents 2 and 3 was not in accordance with law and particularly contending that as per Annexure-A2, interview was intended as a process for verification of the credentials of the candidates and not as a competitive process for assessing the inter se merit of the candidates. Moreover, there was no mention regarding group discussion at all. Therefore, awarding marks for the purpose of interview and group discussion and reckoning such marks for final assessment amounts to changing the rules of the game after it started and the same is impermissible under law. It was further contended that allotment of 50% marks for interview and group discussion together in the absence of any notification regarding the same was arbitrary and unreasonable. Allotment of 50% marks for interview and group discussion for selection to an entry level post is unreasonable, especially so, when all that was intended by the original notification was to assess the basic knowledge and  drafting skills of the candidates.

23. The next decision cited by the learned counsel is the judgment in 'Indian Airlines Corporation v. Capt. K.C.Shukla and Others' [(1993) 1 SCC 17] and has invited our attention to paragraph 3 of the judgment wherein the judgment in 'Ajay Hasia, Lila Dhar, Ashok Kumar Yadav etc. etc. were taken into account and held as follows: "Distinction appears to have been drawn in interview held for competitive examinations or admission in educational institutions and selection for higher posts. Effort has been made to eliminate scope of arbitrariness in the former by narrowing down the proportion as various factors are likely to creep in. But same standard cannot be applied for higher selections. Lila Dhar case brings it out fully. In respondent's case the personality of the respondent was being judged by a Committee constituted under the rules for purposes of higher promotional posts and, therefore it was governed by the ratio laid down in Lila Dhar case and it would be unsafe to strike down the rules as arbitrary when the evaluation was job oriented. Marks to be allotted by the Committee were on professional ability and management capacity. Further the Corporation has amended  the rules and narrowed it down in 1991 by reducing the interview marks to 40 percent only. Moreover after examining the record, which was examined by the High Court, as well, it appears the Committee was neither guilty of arbitrariness nor it violated any rule or regulation in allotting the marks which of course were very low in interview."

29. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the records and assimilated the facts, circumstances and the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions cited supra by either side. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions narrated by us above, and mainly contended that as per Annexure-A1 notification the manner of selection was not prescribed and even though Annexure-A2 communication was issued to the petitioner, the  same mainly speaks only about the written test conducted on 28.09.2012 at the office of the 2nd Respondent. But, so far as the interview was concerned, it only stated that the original documents showing the date of birth, caste, educational qualifications, experience etc. should also be brought for verification at the time of interview. The foremost contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the marks in the written test as well as the interview were not made known to the petitioner before the selection process started. Yet another contention raised by the learned counsel is that the manner in which the interview scheduled was not stipulated either in Annexure-A2 or at any time before the selection process started. Yet another contention raised was that 40% marks awarded to the viva voce test was on the higher side and in the nature of the post i.e. Technical Officer, awarding of so much of marks is arbitrary, which may lead to nepotism and large scale corruption. Thereupon, learned counsel contended that the petitioner has fared very well in the written test and if the marks of the written test and group discussion allotted to the petitioner are taken into account, she is to be awarded Rank No.1.

32. Having considered the rival submissions and understanding the factual and legal situations involved in the case, we are of the considered opinion that, petitioner has not made any allegation against the Interview Board with regard to arbitrariness, malafides or any other illegality, which is a sine qua non for any interference in the process evolved by the 2nd Respondent for selection of a candidate as notified as per Annexure-A1, invoking jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. We are also of the opinion that even though in Annexure-A1 the method of selection was not stipulated, before the written test, the selection process was indicated by the 2nd Respondent as per Annexure-A2. The contention raised by the petitioner in that regard, that since in Annexure-A2, verification of records alone was mentioned during the time of interview, the objective test conducted by viva voce was a surprise cannot be sustained. The term 'interview' itself was an independent terminology applied thus giving an impression that there will be objective assessment and verification of records was only a subsidiary part. Even though the marks for the interview and the written test were not mentioned in Annexure-A2, the same will not  stand any way in the matter of participation in the written test and interview. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, non-mentioning of marks for the viva voce test would lead to nepotism and large-scale corruption, no contentions are raised with regard to the same practised in the case at hand, we are unable to appreciate the said contention advanced by the petitioner. Moreover, there is no quarrel for the petitioner with regard to the marks awarded for the written examination and group discussion. As is stated earlier, group discussion and written test were only part of the selection process and having accepted the said marks, the petitioner is not at liberty to challenge a part of the selection process i.e. viva voce test. Moreover, we have perused Annexure-A7 score sheet and are of the considered opinion that merely because more marks were awarded to Rank Nos.1 to 3 in the interview, it cannot be held that any manner of arbitrariness, corruption or nepotism had taken place in the selection process. Apart from the same, it was contended by the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent that in fact the first rank holder did not join in view of the posting offer in the State of Odisha and therefore Rank No.2 joined in that post. Viewed in that  circumstances also, it can be seen that there was no illegal action from the part of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in the matter of conduct of the selection process. Moreover, taking into account the factual situations, we are unable to subscribe to the views expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 40% marks awarded to the viva voce test is arbitrary. Arbitrariness is to be tested against a pleading and factual situation arising particularly in a case and according to us, the factual situations in this case disclose that there was no manner of arbitrariness or other illegality in the selection process.