TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (9) TMI 700
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing up 480 posts pursuant to the notification dated 09.06.1998. The category-wise vacancies were as under : General : 240 Other Backward Classes : 115 Scheduled Castes : 72 Scheduled Tribes : 53 3. Out of 480 vacancies, 240 posts were meant for general category candidates. The cut-off marks were provided for different categories of candidates in the following terms : General : 71 Other Backward Classes : 56 Scheduled Castes : 20 Scheduled Tribes : 20 4. Indisputably, 426 posts were filled up which were earmarked for candidates belonging to General Category, Other Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 12 posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and 42 posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes, however, could not be filled up owing to non-availability of the qualified eligible candidates. Respondents herein had not been appointed although they had obtained the qualifying marks specified in terms of the notification dated 09.06.1998. 39 unsuccessful candidates filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said application was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted : (i) The vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should not have been directed to be filled up by general candidates. (ii) Having appeared at the competitive examination for public posts, the respondents had no vested legal right and, thus, the writ of mandamus issued by the High Court directing the appellants to fill up the vacancies is illegal. (iii) Respondents, in any event, having participated in the selection process knowing fully well to the procedure laid down therefor and having become unsuccessful therein, the writ application filed by them before the Tribunal was not maintainable. (iv) The High Court had no jurisdiction to lower the cut-off marks as it was the sole prerogative of the employer. 8. Mr. A.K. Ganguly, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, contended : (i) The cut-off mark for the general candidates was specified in an arbitrary manner inasmuch as the marks obtained by the 240th candidate was made the basis thereof. (ii) The Railway Board itself having directed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xed on a rational basis, no exception thereto can be taken. 11. Respondents herein had approached the Tribunal in the year 2000. The Tribunal directed the appellants to consider this case of lowering of the cut-off marks. An inference, therefore, can be drawn from the aforementioned fact that the main prayer of the respondents was that the cut- off marks should be lowered. Appellants admittedly did not agree to the said proposal. The action of the appellants impugned before the Tribunal must, therefore, be considered from the view point as to whether it had the requisite jurisdiction to do so. The Tribunal upheld the contention of the appellant. Once it is held that the appellants had the requisite jurisdiction to fix the cut-off marks, the necessary corollary thereof would be that it could not be directed to lower the same. It is trite that it is for the employer or the expert body to determine the cut-off marks. The court while exercising its power of judicial review would not ordinarily intermeddle therewith. The jurisdiction of the court, in this behalf, is limited. The cut-off marks fixed will depend upon the importance of the subject for the post in question. It is permissib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... matter, the respondents appeared in a competitive examination. The posts advertised were public posts. They did not have any vested right for appointment. It is well-known that even selected candidates do not have legal right in this behalf. [See Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India - 1991 (2) SCR 567 : (1991) 3 SCC 47], Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and Another v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others (1993) 2 SCC 573, All India SC & ST Employees' Association and Another v. A. Arthur Jeen and Others (2001) 6 SCC 380, Food Corporation of India and Others v. Bhanu Lodh and Others (2005) 3 SCC 618]. 17. In Pitta Naveen Kumar and Others v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti and Others (2006) 10 SCC 261], this Court observed : "The legal position obtaining in this behalf is not in dispute. A candidate does not have any legal right to be appointed. He in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India has only a right to be considered therefor. Consideration of the case of an individual candidate although ordinarily is required to be made in terms of the extant rules but strict adherence thereto would be necessary in a case where the rules operate only to the disadvantage of the candidates concerned and ....