Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2010 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (5) TMI 928 - SC - Indian LawsChallenge the marks prescribed for viva-voce test were excessive and contrary to the law - recruitment for the appointment of Civil Judges (Junior Division) - unsuccessful in merit - Division Bench of the High Court non-suited the Petitioner on the ground that he moved the Court after taking a chance for being selected on the basis of the provision which he was seeking to challenge - Whether the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules? - HELD THAT:- The marks prescribed for viva voce test/interview are excessive and selection made in accordance with the criteria like the one specified in Rule 14 read with Appendix-C and para (vi) of the advertisement issued by the Commission has been considered by this Court in several cases including those upon which reliance has been placed by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Although, no straitjacket formula has been judicially evolved for determining whether the prescription of particular percentage of marks for viva voce test/interview introduces an element of arbitrariness in the process of selection or gives unbridled power to the recruiting authority/agency to select less meritorious candidates, by and large, the courts have not found any Constitutional infirmity in prescribing of higher percentage of marks for viva voce test/interview for recruitment to judicial services, administrative services and the like. We are of considered view, that earmarking of 200 marks for viva voce test as against 850 marks for written examination does not violate the doctrine of equality embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the Petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The Petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the Judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J. and K.[1995 (2) TMI 441 - SUPREME COURT], Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.[2007 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT], Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.[2008 (3) TMI 667 - SUPREME COURT], Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam[2009 (1) TMI 853 - SUPREME COURT]. In the result, the special leave petition is dismissed.
|