allotting 100 marks out of total
500 marks, being 20% of total marks of the
examination for interview as excessive,
unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, irrational, unjust ... praying to
declare 100 marks out of total 500 marks, being 20% of total
marks, for the interview as excessive, arbitrary, illegal, irrational
and violative
Yogesh Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 31 May, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL
screening committee had directed to communicate the below bench mark ACRs. Accordingly letter was issued on 29.09.2014.
The applicant has stated that he never received ... applicants junior was promoted declaring non-communication of below bench mark ACRs arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, applicant
instant case and are completely off the mark. The impugned order does not suffer from vice of arbitrariness and is not violative of Articles
applicant not being up to the
mark to deal with his case in an arbitrary manner, which is violative of
his fundamental right
which also high percentage of marks for oral interview
was said to suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. Further, reliance had
been placed ... allocation of
more than 15% of the total marks for the oral interview would be
arbitrary and unreasonable, and would be liable to be struck
reasons for fixing minimum qualifying marks in absence of
any prescribed norms so as to repel the accusation of
arbitrary and unfair exercise of jurisdiction ... minimum bench mark for interview is fixed, and in this case
particularly nothing is mentioned justifying fixing of minimum
marks in the interview, that
their wisdom
reduced the allocation of marks for interview from 50% to 10% to
eliminate or reduce the arbitrariness for the subsequent selections ... many marks should be allowed for the
interview test. Of course the marks must be minimal so as to avoid
charges of arbitrariness
prepared for appointment to the post of Constable
(Executive) as illegal and arbitrary and issue appropriate
directions for giving appointment to the applicants ... reducing questions from 100 to 79
and giving 23.5 bonus marks as illegal, arbitrary and
direct the respondents to prepare the select list for
appointment
prepared for appointment to the post of Constable
(Executive) as illegal and arbitrary and issue appropriate
directions for giving appointment to the applicants ... reducing questions from 100 to 79
and giving 23.5 bonus marks as illegal, arbitrary and
direct the respondents to prepare the select list for
appointment
