LexBISHNU BISWAS & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 625 BISHNU BISWAS & ORS. A V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4255-58 of 2014) APRIL 2, 2014 B [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.) SERVICE LAW· Selection - To Group D posts - Interview not being part C of the process, equal marks earmarked for written test and interview - Held: Criterion was changed after conducting the written test and admittedly not at the stage of initiation of the selection process - Marks allocated for oral interview were the same as for written test i.e. 50% for each - The manner in which marks were awarded in the interview to candidates D indicated lack of transparency - Some candidates were awarded more marks in interview than they got in written test - Direction of High Court to continue with the selection process from the point it stood vitiated does not require interference. Appointment of appellants to 8 group 'D' posts was E challenged on the ground that though interview was not part of the recruitment process, equal marks were earmarked for written test and interview. The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the appointments. The appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court, F which modified the order of the Tribunal to the extent of continuing the recruitment process from the point it stood vitiated. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 This Court, time and again, has held that It Is not permissible for the employer to change the criteria of selection in the midst of selection process. [Para 4) [630-G-H] 625 G H 626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R. A Himani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, 2008 (5 ) SCR 1066 =AIR 2008 SC 2103; Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi & Anr., 2010 (2) SCR 256 =AIR 2010 SC 3714; P. Mohanan Pillai v. State of Kera/a & Ors., 2007 (3 ) SCR 53 = AIR 2007 SC 2840; Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan B High Court & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 540; Tamil Nadu Computer Science BEd Graduate Teachers Welfare Society (1) v. Higher Secondary School Computer Teachers Association & Ors., 2009 (10) SCR 522 = (2009) 14 SCC 517; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Mithilesh Kumar, ·2010 (10) SCR 161 = (2010) 13 C SCC 467; and Arunacha/ Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Tage Habung & Ors., 2013 (2 ) SCR 1134 =AIR 2013 SC 1601 - relied on. 1.2 The courts have always frowned upon prescribing higher percentage of marks for interview D even when the selection has been on the basis of written test as well as interview. In Jasvinder Singh's case, the Court cautioned observing that in cases of awarding of higher percentage of marks to those who got lower marks in written test in comparison to some who had got E higher marks in written examination, an adverse inference from certain number of such instances can be drawn. [para 14 and 19] [634-E; 635-D-E] Jasvinder Singh & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., (2003) 2 F SCC 132; Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors. 1985 (1) Suppl. SCR 657 = AIR 1987 SC 454; Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. 1981 (2) SCR 79 = AIR 1981 SC 487; Munindra Kumar & Ors. v. Rajiv Govil & Ors., 1991 (2) SCR 812 =AIR 1991 SC 1607; G Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab & Ors., 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 108 = (1991) 1 SCC 662; and Kiran Gupta & Ors. etc. etc. v. State of U.P. & Ors. etc., AIR 2000 SC 3299; and Satpa/ & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 1995 Supp (1) sec 206 - relied on. H BISHNU BISWAS & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 627 1.3 The appropriate allocation of marks for interview, where selection is to be made by written test as well as by interview, would depend upon the nature of post and no straight-jacket formula can be laid down. Further, there is a distinction while considering the case of employment and of admission for an academic course. The courts have repeatedly emphasized that for the purpose of admission in an educational institution, the allocation of interview marks would not be very high but for the purpose.of employment, allocation of marks for interview would depend upon the nature of post. [para 15] [634-F-H] Mehmood Alam Tariq & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 379 =AIR 1988 SC 1451; State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin & Ors. 1988 SCR 794 =AIR 1988 SC 162; and Anzar Ahmad v. State of Bihar & Ors., 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 434 =AIR 1994 SC 141 - referred to. 1.4 In the instant case, the rules of the game were changed after conducting the written test a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.