TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 820
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ations for appointment but did not lay down the selection procedure, the manner and method of selection is decided by the High Court, for every selection, as and when the vacancies are notified for selection. 3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued an advertisement dated 28.5.2004 inviting applications for appointment to the following ten posts of District & Sessions Judges (Grade II) in the A.P. State Higher Judicial Service by direct recruitment : Open category : 4 (1 Woman) Backward Class Group A : 1 (Woman) Backward Class Group B : 1 (Woman) Scheduled Caste : 2 (1 Woman) Scheduled Tribe : 1 The advertisement stated that a written examination followed by an interview will be held for selection to the above posts. The last date for receipt of applications was 15.6.2004. In all 1637 applications were received. On scrutiny 1516 applicants were eligible to take the written examination. 4. The Full Court of Andhra Pradesh High Court has authorized its Chief Justice to constitute Committees for the convenience of administration. The resolutions of the Full Court containing the guidelines relating to the functioning of the High Court have been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ks (for 125) 01 1859 Smt. Venkata Jyothrimayee OC 72 9.6 81.6 02 1775 Smt. C.Sumalatha OC 61 19.4 80.4 03 1073 Smt. k. Manju Sree OC 68.5 10.6 79.1 04 1694 A.Hari Haranatha Sarma OC 64.5 14.4 78.9 05 1009 Smt. G.Anupama Chakravarthy BC(A) 51 8.6 59.6 06 1590 Smt. V.B.Nirmala Geethamba BC(B) 59.5 16.4 75.9 07 1059 M.Lakshman 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 date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t basis, nine candidates were recommended for appointment as follows : DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGES GRADE - II EXAMINATION, 2005 (LIST OF CANDIDATES TO BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPOINTMENT) Sl. No. Regn. Number Name of the candidate Category Marks in Written Exam (out of 75) 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. Manjula Devi BC.B(W) 33.75 13.2 46.95 7 1176 BSV. Prakash Kumar SC 36.75 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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 in the first list nor in the second list has filed this SLP. She was not a party in the writ petition before the High Court and has filed this SLP with an application seeking permission to file the SLP and for condoning the delay of 192 days in filing the SLP. She has contended that applying the criterion of minimum qualifying marks in the interview, without notifying the same to the candidates was violative of principles of natural justice. She has contended that the selection procedur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny 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 Court for its consideration and approval. The Administrative Committee at its meeting held on 30.11.2004 considered the method and manner of recruitment to be adopted in regard to the said recruitment and took the following three decisions : (i) that the written examination will be held on 30.1.2005 simultaneously at four centres; (ii) that the marks for the written examination shall be 75 and for oral examination 25; and (iii) that the minimum qualifying marks for OC/BC/SC/ST shall b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ks 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 resolution stated that the minimum qualifying marks was 50% for open category, 40% for Backward Classes and 35% for Scheduled Tribes in the written examination. It did not prescribe any minimum for the interviews. Nor was it understood as prescribing any minimum marks for the interview. That the Administrative committee and Full Court intended and in face proceeded on the basis that there would be no minimum marks for the interview is evident from the fact that in regard to recruitment of 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amination 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 on the basis that there was no minimum marks for interview. To put it differently the game was played under the rule that there was no minimum marks for the interview. 20. Shri P. P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court submitted that the Resolution dated 21.2.2002 merely corrected a typographical error in the Resolution dated 24.7.2001, regarding minimum marks relating to written examination, and the last portion of the Resolution dated 24.7.2001, rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ritten 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 were raised on two grounds. One related to the failure to provide the minimum of 50%, 40% and 35% marks for interviews, on the interpretation of resolution dated 30.11.2004 read with earlier resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002. The second objection was that even though the Administrative Committee had resolved that the marks for written examination would be 75 and interview would be 25, at the time of tabulating the marks, the marks secured (out of 100 marks) in the written examin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 reason that such deviation from the rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm. This Court held that as there was no power under the rules for the Selection Board to prescribed the additional qualification of securing minimum marks in the interview, the restriction was impermissible and had a direct impact on the merit list because the merit list was to be prepared according to the aggregate marks obtained by the candidates at written test and interview. This Court o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt 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 which a candidate should obtain in the written papers or in the aggregate in order to qualify himself to become a member of the Judicial Service. The prescription of the minimum of 600 marks in the aggregate by the Selection Committee as an addition requirement which the candidate has to satisfy amounts to an amendment of what is prescribed by clause (6) of the Appendix\005\005.. We are of the view that the Selection Committee has no power to prescribe the minimum marks which a candid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arks, 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 Administrative Committee and Interview Committee were only delegates of the Full Court and the Full Court has the absolute power to determine or regulate the process of selection and it has also the power and authority to modify the decisions of the Administrative Committee. There can be no doubt about the proposition. The Administrative Committee being only a delegate of the Full Court, all decisions and resolutions of Administrative Committee are placed before the Full Court for its a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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. CONCLUSION 32. We therefore, find that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court has to be set aside with a direction to the AP High Court to redraw the merit list without applying any minimum marks f....