LexARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR. versus TAGE HABUNG & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2013] 2 S.C.R. 1134 ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR. v. TAGE HABUNG & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4168 of 2013) MAY 1, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE C COMBINED COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION RULES, 2001: r. 11 read with r. 12 - Fixing of minimum qualifying marks subsequent to the advertisement - Held: Rule does not mandate the Commission to fix and to disclose minimum D qualifying marks in Preliminary Examination and Main Examination either in the advertisement or before conducting the examination - After the two examinations, Commission is empowered to shortlist the candidates and to summon them for an interview for personality and other tests - Power E exercised by the Commission under r. 11 fixing the qualifying marks in the written examination in the process of conducting the recruitment test cannot be interfered with by the Court - However, the Rule does not empower the Commission to fix qualifying marks in viva voce test which has rightly not been F done by it. The appellant State Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 25. 7 .2006 inviting applications through Combined Competitive Examination to various Group A and Group B posts under the State G Government. Prior to completion of main examination, the State by 0. M. dated 7 .1.2008 declared the cut-off marks as 33o/o or more for all subjects in each written examination. The Commission adopted the OM by its H 1134 ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE 1135 COMMISSION v. TAGE HABUNG decision/Notification dated 16.4.2008. The Division A Bench of the High Court, held that OM dated 7.1.2008 and the Notification dated 16.4.2008 could not be made operative in the midst of continuation of the selection process which was initiated pursuant to advertisement dated 25.7.2006. B In the instant appeal filed by the Commission, the question for consideration before the Court was: whether after commencement of recruitment process, the appellants were justified in fixing the minimum 33% C qualifying marks in all the subjects in order to appear in the viva voce test. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 On perusal of r. 11 of Arunachal Pradesh 0 Public Service Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2001, it is manifest that the Commission reserves its right to fix at its discretion the minimum qualifying marks both in the Preliminary Examination and the Main Written Examination. It empowers the Commission to fix E minimum qualifying marks for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates for interview. The Rule does not mandate the Commission to fix and to disclose the minimum qualifying marks in the Preliminary Examination and Main Examination either in the advertisement or before conducting the examination. After the two examinations, F the Commission is empowered to shortlist the candidates and to summon them for an interview for personality and other tests. However, the Rule does not empower the Commission to fix qualifying marks in viva voce test which has rightly not been done by it. As per r. 12, after G the interview the candidates will be arranged by the Commission in order of merit as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate in the main examination (written examination and interview put H 1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 2 S.C.R. A together). [para 14 and 29] [1148-F-H; 1149-A-B; 1159-F- GJ 1.2 It is now well settled that fixing the qualifying marks in the viva voce test after the commencement of 8 the process of selection is not justified but fixing some criteria for qualifying a candidate in the written examination is necessary in order to shortlist the candidates for participating in the interview. [para 28] [1159-D-E] C A.A. Calton vs. The Director of Education & Anr. 1983 (2) SCR 598 = AIR 1983 SC 1143; K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kera/a & Ors., 2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 790 =(2006) 6 SCC 395; Hemani Malhotra Etc. vs. High Court of Delhi, 2008 (5) SCR 1066 = (2008) 7 SCC 11; and Union of India & Ors. vs. D S. Vinodh Kumar & Ors., 2007 (10) SCR 41 = (2007) 8 SCC 100 - referred to. Sushi/ Kumar Ghosh vs. State of Assam & Others 1993 11) GLR 315 - held inap~licable. E 1.3 Fixation of qualifying marks as 33% in the written examination cannot be held to be an illegal or arbitrary action of the Commission merely because it was notified in the process of conducting recruitment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.