TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rth 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. - Appeal (civil) 1313 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2008 - CJI K. G. Balakrishnan, R. V. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h by the Administrative Committee. Recruitment of District Judges is a matter to be dealt with by the Administrative committee under SO 2.14. The decision/minutes of the Administrative committee in regard to recruitment of District Judges are thereafter placed before the Full Court for its consideration under SO 2.13. 5. The Administrative committee by its resolution dated 30.11.2004 decided the method and manner of selection. It resolved to conduct the written examination for the candidates for 75 marks and oral examination for 25 marks. It also resolved that the minimum qualifying marks for the OC, BC, SC and ST candidates shall be as prescribed earlier. As per its direction, the written examination was held on 30.1.2005 and 1026 candidates appeared for the examination. The results were declared on 24.2.2005 and 83 candidates were successful in the written examination. Due to the pendency of some litigation, interviews could not be held immediately. A committee of five Judges was constituted for interviewing the candidates and interviews were held in March 2006. Thereafter, the marks obtained by the 83 candidates in the written examination and in the interview were aggregated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BC(D) 59 8.2 67.2 08 1176 BSV. Prakash Kumar SC 49 10 59 09 2336 Smt. Girija M. Priyadarshani SC 48 8.4 56.4 10 1220 N. Tukaramji ST 36.5 11.4 47.9 6. The Administrative committee considered the report, the merit list and list of recommended candidates proposed by the interview and by resolution dated 4.4.2006 approved the selection of the said ten candidates and directed the said select list be placed before the Full Court on 6.4.2006 for its consideration. 7. The Full Court considered the resolutions of the Administrative committee dated 30.11.2004 and 4.4.2006 and the record of selection. The Full Court impliedly approved the resolution dated 30.11.2004. But it did not agree wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Interview (out of 25) Total marks (out of 100) 1 1775 Smt. C. Sumalatha OC 45.75 19.4 65.15 2 1117 Smt. G.Radharani OC 46.87 16 62.87 3 1694 A. Hari Haranadha Sarma OC 48.37 14.4 62.77 4 1590 Smt. V.B. Nirmala Geethamba (BC.B) OC (W) 44.62 16.4 61.02 5 1186 K. Sreenivas BC.D 38.25 12.6 50.85 6 1072 Smt.P. Manjul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esolution dated 30.11.2004 by the Administrative committee, the action of the Full Court altering the norms for selection by introducing minimum marks for interview, after completion of the selection process, would amount to changing the rules of the game, not only after the game was started but after the game was played. 11. Several applications for impleadment filed by the selected/non-selected candidates have been ordered to be heard along with the main matter. IA No.2 was filed by A. Hariharanatha Sarma, N. Thukaramji, V.B. Nirmala Geethamba and BSV Prakash Kumar whose names were found in both the first and second lists. IA Nos.3 and 5 are filed by G. Anupama Chakravarthy and P. Venkata Jyothirmai who were at Sl.Nos.5 and 1 in the first list (whose names were omitted in the second list). IA No.4 is filed by G.Radha Rani, K.Sreenivas and M.Renuka whose names are found in the second list at Sl.Nos.2,,5,6 and 8. They were also heard. While the applicants in IA Nos.2,3 and 5 have supported the contentions urged by the appellant, the applicants in IA No.4 have contended to the contrary. SLP [C] No.[CC Nos.s7188-89/2007] 12. One E. Thirumala Devi whose name is found neither ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed by the Administrative committee for filling the posts advertised on 28.5.2004? (ii) Whether the list prepared by the Interview Committee and approved by the Administrative committee suffered from any error, irregularity or illegality? (iii) 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 ? Re : Question (i) 16. The Rules did not prescribe any procedure for selection. When the posts were advertised, the only criterion for selection that was mentioned was that the selection will be by holding a written examination followed by an interview. The manner of holding written examinations and interviews, the marks for written examination and interview, whether the candidates should secure any minimum marks in the written examination and/or interview, were all yet to be decided. 17. As per the practice followed by the High Court (standing orders referred to above) the entire process of recruitment of Distrit Judges was to be dealt with by the Administrative Committee and the decisions of the Administrative Committee were placed before the Full C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks for Open Category is 50 percent, for Backward classes (B.Cs) 40 percent and Scheduled Tribes (S.Ts) 35 percent in the written examination. 18. Let us try to analyse and find out the combined effect of the resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002. The resolution dated 24.7.2001 prescribed the following marks for the written examination and the interview: (a) The marks for written examination was 75 marks and the minimum qualifying marks was 50 marks for open category, 40 marks for backward classes and 35 marks for Scheduled Tribes; (b) The marks prescribed for interview was 25 marks and the minimum qualifying marks for interview was 16.67 marks for open category, 13.33 marks for Backward Classes, and 11.67 marks for Scheduled Tribes (by applying the ratio that was prescribed for written examination). The resolution dated 24.7.2001 was amended on 21.2.2002 and it was decided to have only minimum qualifying marks in the written test and not for the oral examination. This is evident from the subject placed for consideration on 21.2.2002 and the resolution on the subject. The subject for consideration was : Minimum qualifying marks in the written examination. The resolut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Committee and approved by the Administrative Committee. This shows that the Interview Committee conducted the interviews on 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 20th, 24th and 31st of March, 2006 on the understanding that there were no minimum marks for interviews, that the marks awarded by them in the interview will not by itself have the effect of excluding or ousting any candidate from being selected, and that marks awarded by them in the interviews will merely be added to the written examination marks, for preparation of the merit list and selection. We are referring to this aspect, as the manner of conducting interviews and awarding marks in interviews, by the five members of the interviewing committee would have been markedly different if they had to proceed on the basis that there were minimum marks to be secured in the interview for being considered for selection and that the marks awarded by them would have the effect of barring or ousting any candidate from being considered for selection. Thus, the entire process of selection - from the stage of holding the examination, holding interviews and finalizing the list of candidates to be selected - was done by the Selection committee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with reference to a question paper set for a maximum of 100 marks. The interviews, of course, were held with reference to maximum of 25 marks. Therefore, it was necessary to scale down the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination (with reference to a maximum of 100 marks) proportionately to arrive at the marks with reference to a maximum of 75 marks so that the ratio of maximum marks in written examination and interview would be 3:1. If the maximum marks for the written examination was 100 and for the interview was 25, then the ratio between the marks for written examination and interview would be 4:1, thereby altering the prescribed marks, after the selection process had begun. We are, therefore, of the view that the 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. Re : Question (iii) 22. When the Administrative Committee placed the merit lists and Selection List before Full Court, apparently objections wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that what was adopted on 30.11.2004 was only minimum marks for written examination and not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. We are fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to three of them P. K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India 1984 (2) SCC 141, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India 1985 (3) SCC 721, and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa 1987 (4) SCC 646. 25. In Ramachandra Iyer (supra), this Court was considering the validity of a selection process under the ICAR Rules, 1977 which provided for minimum marks only in the written examination and did not envisage obtaining minimum marks in the interview. But the Recruitment Board (ASRB) prescribed a further qualification of obtaining minimum marks in the interview also. This Court observed that the power to prescribe minimum marks in the interview should be explicit and cannot be read by implication for the obvious ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble for viva voce and came into the list. Secondly, the Selection Committee prescribed for selection, a minimum aggregate of 600 marks in the written examination and viva voce which was not provided in the Rules and that resulted in some of the names in the list of 27 being omitted. This Court held neither was permissible. Dealing with the prescription of minimum 600 marks in the aggregate this Court observed : There is no power reserved under Rule 18 of the Rules for the High Court to fix its own minimum marks in order to include candidates in the final list. It is stated in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition 4363 of 1985 that the Selection Committee has inherent power to select candidates who according to it are suitable for appointment by prescribing the minimum marks which a candidate should obtain in the aggregate in order to get into the Delhi Judicial Service\005\005 But on going through the Rules, we are of the view that no fresh disqualification or bar may be created by the High Court or the Selection Committee merely on the basis of the marks obtained at the examination because clause (6) of the Appendix itself has laid down the minimum marks w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee want to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the selection committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process, add an additional requirement that the candidates should also secure minimum marks in the interview. What we have found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview. 30. It was submitted that Adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew by an interpretative process which is not warranted and which is at variance with the interpretation adopted while implementing the current selection process and the earlier selections. As the Full Court approved the resolution dated 30.11.2004 of the Administrative Committee and also decided to retain the entire process of selection consisting of written examination and interviews it could not have introduced a new requirement of minimum marks in interviews, which had the effect of eliminating candidates, who would otherwise be eligible and suitable for selection. Therefore, we hold that the action of Full Court in revising the merit list by adopting a minimum percentage of marks for interviews was impermissible. 31. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
