TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the viva voce test and evaluation process for selection of Munsiffs under the recruitment rules was vitiated by failure to split marks faculty-wise, absence of tape-recording, alleged bias, or alleged illegality in assessing eligibility and interview performance; (ii) Whether the select list could validly be operated beyond the 11 vacancies for which requisition was made, and what consequence followed for the composition and currency of the list.
Issue (i): Whether the viva voce test and evaluation process for selection of Munsiffs under the recruitment rules was vitiated by failure to split marks faculty-wise, absence of tape-recording, alleged bias, or alleged illegality in assessing eligibility and interview performance.
Analysis: The recruitment rules required written examination and viva voce test, and rule 10(1)(b) stated the object of interview as assessing intelligence, general knowledge, personality, aptitude and suitability. The rule did not require separate faculty-wise marking. The interview committee was entitled to make an overall assessment on the basis of the prescribed criteria. A candidate who appears in the selection process without protest and takes a chance cannot, after being unsuccessful, challenge the process merely because the result is unpalatable. The Court also held that it could not sit in appeal over the expert committee's assessment, and the absence of tape-recording did not invalidate the interview because the rule did not make it mandatory. The allegations of community preference and favouritism were treated as unsupported by material, and the eligibility challenge failed because the required certificates from the District Judge were produced and accepted.
Conclusion: The challenge to the viva voce process, interview assessment, and eligibility objections was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the select list could validly be operated beyond the 11 vacancies for which requisition was made, and what consequence followed for the composition and currency of the list.
Analysis: The requisition from the Government was confined to 11 clear vacancies, and the recruitment could not be treated as one for filling additional anticipated vacancies in the absence of a further requisition. Rule 41 governed the life of the select list and waiting list for one year or until exhaustion by appointment, whichever occurred earlier. The Court held that the Commission could prepare a list larger than the number of requisitioned vacancies, but actual appointments had to be confined to the vacancies requisitioned. The lower-ranked candidates beyond the 11 posts could operate only as a reservoir for the requisitioned vacancies and not for any extra posts arising later. The Court accordingly directed that 9 general category posts and 2 reserved posts, one each for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates, be filled from the list in order of merit, and that the list would lapse after the 11 vacancies were filled or on expiry of one year, excluding the period of stay.
Conclusion: The objection to operating the list beyond the requisitioned vacancies was accepted to the stated extent, and the appointments were confined to 11 posts with the indicated reservation split.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not succeed on the challenge to the selection process, but the Court limited the operation of the select list to the 11 requisitioned vacancies and issued directions regulating how those vacancies were to be filled in accordance with the recruitment rules.
Ratio Decidendi: In recruitment governed by a select list, the Commission may recommend more candidates than the number of requisitioned vacancies, but actual appointments cannot exceed the vacancies for which the Government has sought selection unless there is a further requisition, and an interview process under general criteria need not split marks head-wise unless the rule expressly requires it.
TaxTMI 
