Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2008 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 820 - SC - Indian LawsWhat was the procedure (method and manner of selection) prescribed by the Administrative committee for filling the posts advertised on 28.5.2004? - Held that:- To test the correctness of his contention, we asked the learned counsel for the High Court to explain why the 2001-2002 selections were done without applying minimum marks for interview. He was not in a position to explain why the 2001-2002 selections were made without applying any minimum marks for the interviews, if the resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002 had really provided that there should be a minimum marks for the interview. The only explanation was that it was due to some oversight or mistake. The said explanation is neither satisfactory nor valid. Whether the list prepared by the Interview Committee and approved by the Administrative committee suffered from any error, irregularity or illegality? - Held that:- First list requested an arithmetical correction, that is, scaling down of the written examination marks to three fourth of what was secured by them with reference to a maximum of 100 marks, so that the ratio of 3:1 could be maintained in respect of the marks for written examination and interviews. Whether the procedure adopted by the Full Court in preparing the fresh selection list by applying the requirement of minimum marks for interview also, is legal and valid ? - Held that:- The Division Bench of the High Court while considering the validity of the second list, has completely missed this aspect of the matter. It has proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the resolution dated 30.11.2004 of the Administrative Committee prescribed minimum marks for interviews. Consequently, it erroneously held that the Administrative Committee had acted contrary to its own resolution dated 30.11.2004 in not excluding candidates who had not secured the minimum marks in the interview and that the Full Court had merely corrected the wrong action of the Administrative Committee by drawing up the revised merit list by applying marks for interview also. The decision of the Division Bench therefore, cannot be sustained.
|