Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to set aside and quash the order dated 25-07-2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (the ‘Tribunal’), the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Girish Kathpalia, JJ., noted the petitioner’s contention that that the marks assigned for qualifying the interview should not have been more than 15%, and stated that the petitioner did not challenge the criteria laid down for qualifying the examination, prior to entering into the selection process. The Court stated that the fact remained that the petitioner participated in the selection process, but, after he failed to make his place in the recruitment, he had challenged the selection process.
Thus, the Court held that the Tribunal in its impugned judgment had rightly held that the selection had been carried out in accordance with the procedures and the petitioner ought to have raised the alarm at the time of notification of the advertisement or before the interviewing authority on the day of interview itself.
Background
The petitioner stated that Indian Space Research Organisation vide notification dated 04-10-2016 invited applications for two posts of Administrative Officer under SC/ST category. The selection process comprised of two parts i.e. written test and interview. The petitioner applied for it under the SC category. As per the petitioner, five candidates were allowed to participate in the interview, and when the final select list was issued, the petitioner’s name was not included.
The petitioner vide application dated 19-05-2017 under Right to Information Act, 2005 sought details of the candidates’ marks who were invited for the interview. The petitioner claimed that in the reply to the application under RTI Act, Respondent 1-Department of Space indicated that he had secured highest in the written examination and in aggregate in the interview.
The petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals’ Act, 1985 seeking to quash and set aside the appointment order and for removal of Respondent 3, from the post of Administrative Officer, who was appointed as per the appointment order and sought further direction to Respondents 1 and 2 to give him appointment.
The Tribunal vide its order dated 25-07-2018 observed that no doubt the petitioner had fairly attempted the written examination, but he could not perform well in the interview and the final list was made based on marks obtained in the written test and interview. The Tribunal also observed that the allegations of mala fide at the hands of Respondent 1, having pre-determined mind to appoint Respondent 3, was not justified as the selection board was headed by an IAS Officer. Moreover, such allegations were not substantiated from any available record.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the advertisement dated 04-10-2016, notified two vacancies for recruitment to the post of Administrative Officer, out of which one pertained to SC category and the other to ST category. Further, after perusal of the result of the seven candidates, the Court observed that the petitioner had secured the maximum marks in the written examination and was eligible for appearing in interview.
Regarding the petitioner’s allegation that the action of respondent to call seven candidates for interview was arbitrary, as it was done with an intent to benefit Respondent 3, the Court stated that only three candidates had cleared the Bench mark of 62 marks out of 124 and four more candidates, who were next in merit, were chosen for interview and for this normalization of marks in the written examination in the ratio of 60:40 was done. Generally, any appointing authority, with an intent to recruit the best candidate, interviews a greater number of candidates, i.e. over and above the vacancies notified or advertised. Thus, the Court stated that this objection of petitioner could not be sustained.
The Court stated that the criteria laid down for selection in the advertisement clearly showed that those candidates who would secure 50% marks in the written test and interview both, and secure minimum aggregate of 60% should be considered for empanelment. In the case of petitioner, he had secured total 59.62 marks, whereas Respondent 3 had obtained 64.85 marks.
Further, regarding the petitioner’s contention that the marks assigned for qualifying the interview should not have been more than 15%, the Court stated that prior to entering the selection process, the petitioner did not challenge the criteria laid down for qualifying the examination. The fact remained that the petitioner participated in the selection process, but, after he failed to make his place in the recruitment, he had challenged the selection process.
The Court stated that the intent to interview a candidate was not only to evaluate his personality but also to assess the candidate’s capability depending upon the job requirement. The discretion was with the interviewing authority to evaluate and assign marks to a candidate. The Court further stated that it was the settled principle that a Court could not step into the shoes of the Appointing Authority to examine that whether the marks assigned to a candidate were less or excessive or not corresponding to the performance in the written test and the interview.
Thus, the Court held that the Tribunal in its impugned judgment had rightly held that the selection had been carried out in accordance with the procedures and the petitioner ought to have raised the alarm at the time of notification of the advertisement or before the interviewing authority on the day of interview itself. The petitioner had never challenged the selection criteria and appeared in the selection process, however, when he could not find his place in selection list, he knocked the doors of the Court alleging mala fide at the hands of respondents, which could not be permitted. Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition.
[Ravi Kumar v. Department of Space, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6676, decided on 23-09-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Respondents: Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC with Srish Kumar Mishra and Alexandar Mathai Paikaday, Advocates; Harsh Tikku and Manish Kumar, Advocates.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
