MADHUKAR BAKRU PINGAL
v.
SHRI RAJENDRA D. GAIKWAD AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 13, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY
AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)
Se1vice Law
A
B
Selection--Criteiia,-50% marks for WTitten examination and 50% for C
viva-vocC--Challenge by unsuccessful candidate-T1ibunal holding allocation
of 50% marks for viva- voce arbitraiy-Direction to set aside appointment of
selected candidate and appointment of unsuccessful candidate-Held not
justified-Supreme Court-Direction to conduct selection on the basis of
lower ma1ks in viva-voce and higher marks in w1itten examination.
The appellant was selected and appointed as Police Patil. The
selection criteria prescribed 50% marks for written examination and 50%
for viva-voce examination. Respondent-I, an unsuccessful candidate, filed
D
an application before the Tribunal which held that allocation of 50%
marks in viva- voce was arbitrary. Further the Tribunal set aside the E
appointment of appellant and directed appointment of Respondent- 1.
In appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant that the
appropriate course for the Tribunal was to direct the authorities to select
candidates by prescribing lesser marks for viva voce and higher marks
for written examination.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
F
HELD
1. The direction issued by the Tribunal to appoint the
contesting respondent-I as Police Patil is set aside. Instead, the official
respondents are directed to conduct written examination and viva-voce test G
allocating 85% and 15% of marks respectively and consider the cases of all
those candidates who appeared at the initial examination and make selec-
tion according to rules. Under the interim direction, the appellant is
continuing in service and would continue till a candidate is duly selected
and appointed. [628-H, 629-A, 628-G]
H
627
628
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3S.C.R.
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7081 of
B
c
1994.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.94 of the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay in 0.A. No. 987 of 1993.
A. M. Khanwilkar for the Appellant
S.V. Deshpande for the Respondents
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
On July 27, 1992 applications were invited to fill up the post of Police
Patil in the village Ambe, Dindori Taluk of Nasik District. Five persons
had applied for the recruitment. The appellant was selected and was
appointed as the Police Patil. On challenge being made by the respondent
No. 1 before the Tribunal, the Tribunal set aside the appointment order of
D the appellant. The Tribunal observed that 50% of marks were reserved for
written examination and 50% marks were for viva-voce and held that the
prescription of 50% of marks for viva-voce is arbitrary as per the law laid
down by this Court. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside ~e appointment of
the appellant and directed to appoint the respondent. Thus, this appeal by
£
special leave.
Mr. Khanwilkar, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that
even assuming .that prescription of 50% of marks for viva- voce is invalid
the appropriate course would have been that a direction w~s given to the
· F
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to prescribe lesser marks for viva-voce and higher
marks for written eXamination and to direct conducting examinations of the
candidates who had applied for afresh and. considering the cases of the
candidates according to law. We find force in the contentioµ. The Tribunal,
instead, has given direction to appoint Respondent No. 1 who was not
selected by the appointing authority. Under the interim direction, the
G appellant is continuing in service and would continue till a candidate is duly
selected and appointed.
In these circumstances, we set aside the direction issued by the
Tribunal to appoint the contesting respondent No. 1 as Police Patil. Instead
H the offici~l respondents are directed to conduct written examination and
M.B. PINGAL v. R.D. GAIKWAD
629
viva-voce test allocating 85% and 15% of marks respectively and consider A
the cases of all those candidates who appeared at the initial examination
and make selection according to rules.
The appeal is accordingly allowed'. No costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal allowed. B
Lex