GOA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus PANKAJ RANE & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 5 S.C.R. 657 · Decided: 06-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
657
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 657
657
GOA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
v.
PANKAJ RANE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2779 of 2022)
APRIL 06, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016: r 10, 12 – Constitution of
India – Art.320 – Power of Commission, scope – Pursuant to
advertisement, the respondents appeared in the computer-based
screening test and cleared the same – Thereafter, they appeared in
the written test and also cleared the same – Interview was scheduled
and then the appellant-Commission fixed the cut-off marks for
interview to be 26 out of 40 – Interview took place and respondents
were declared unsuccessful – Respondents challenged before the
High Court fixing of cut-off marks by the appellant-commission
upon the premise that as per rr.10 and 12 of the Goa Civil Service
Rules, and in light of Art.320 of the Constitution, the appellant-
commission had no power to fix the cut- off at 65% at the interview
stage and no mention was even made in the advertisement– High
Court allowed the respondents’s writ petition holding that the fixing
of the 65% minimum qualifying marks in the oral interview was
illegal and beyond the powers of the appellant-commission – Hence
instant appeal – Held: r.10(5) declares that the marks to be allotted
for written examination and oral interview is to be notified in the
advertisement – Since there is no mention of minimum to be obtained
by any candidate in the interview, therefore such fixing of cut-off
marks by appellant- commission is beyond its powers – Service law.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Rule 10 contemplates the holding of a competitive
examination and oral interview. The competitive examination is
to be conducted by the appellant in the manner notified by the
Government from time to time. The proviso provides the appellant
with the power to hold a screening test required for shortlisting
of candidates. The manner in which it is to be held is a matter to
be decided by the Commission from time to time. It is most
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
pertinent to note that Rule 10(3) specifically declares that a
candidate must obtain a minimum passing percentage in the
competitive written examination. It is pegged at 65 per cent of
the total marks. The percentage is purportedly reduced in the
case of certain categories. It must noted that Rule 10(5) declares
that the marks to be allotted for written examination and oral
interview is to be notified in the advertisement inviting the
applications by the Commission. Commission cannot be found to
have acted contrary to the Rules insofar as, the Commission has,
in the advertisement, declared the marks to be alloted for the
written examination and oral interview. What is conspicuous by
its absence in Rule 10 is any minimum to be obtained by any
candidate in the interview. When the question arose as to how
the interview should be conducted, the Commission decided on
16.05.2017 to fix 26 marks out of 40 as cut off marks. It no doubt
works out at 60 per cent of the total marks in the interview
segment. Rules did not provide for a separate minimum for the
interview. The advertisement did not provide for a separate
minimum in the interview. It is almost a week before the interview
that the Commission took the decision in this regard. [Paras 10,
16][666-E-H; 673-B-C]
K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC
512 : [2008] 2 SCR 1025; Durgacharan Misra v. State
of Orissa (1987) 4 SCC 646 : [1987] 3 SCR 1097
– relied on.
M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar
(1994) 6 SCC 293 : [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 665; Yogesh
Yadav v. UOI & Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 623 : [2013] 8
SCR 194 – distinguished.
2. Rule 12 declares that the Commission is duty bound to
forward to the Government the select list. The select list is to be
arranged in the order of merit of the candidates. The select list is
to be sent arranged in the order of merit which, in turn, is to be
determined in accordance with the aggregate marks obtained by
each candidate at the competitive written examination and oral
interview. The rule maker was conscious of the fact that it has
prescribed a separate minimum to be obtained by candidate in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
659
the written examination. It also contemplated the holding of an
interview but as regards the interview a separate minimum was
not stipulated. But at the same time, the law giver has
contemplated that the Commission is to prepare a select list
wherein merit wou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.