MANJEET SINGH, UDC AND ORS. ETC. versus EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN. AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 119 · Decided: 22-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MANJEET SINGH, UDC AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN. AND ANR. ETC. 
MARCH 22, 1990 
[RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. PUNCHHI AND 
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Employees State Insurance Act, 1948: Sections 2-A, 17(2) and 
J-
97( 1)(2)(xx). 
A 
B 
Employees State Insurance Corporation-Insurance Inspector-
C 
Recruitn;ientJJf-Written Test and Interview-No pass marks prescribed 
for interview-Selection made on the basis of 40% marks in the 
;iJlterview held reasonable. 
Service Law-Post_Filling ·up of vacancies-2/3 by promotion 
and 1/3 by direct recruitment-Panel-Direct Recruit quota partially 
.filled-Filling of accumulated vacancies from out of old penal-
Desirability of. 
The respondent Corporation prepared a panel for the post of 
Insurance Inspector, for filling up the direct-recruit quota, on the basis 
of written test and interview_ In the absence of prescribed marks for the 
interview-40% was made as basic limit for selection. 
The unsuccessful candidates challenged their rejection before the 
Central Administrative Tribunal contending that the ·selection based on 
40% marks in the interview was unjustified. Petitions were also filed by 
the successful candidates seeking directions to the respondent Corpora-
tion to issue appointments pursuant to the panel prepared. 
The tribunal directed that a fresh select list be prepared for filling 
up the remaining vacancies on the basis of the total marks obtained in 
the written examination and interview, in disregard of the qualifying 
marks of the interview. Hence this appeal. The successful candidates 
also filed a Writ Petition contending that they were entitled to appoint-
ment order since there was no indication of the expiry of the panel. 
Allowing the appeal in part and disposing of the matter, this 
Court, 
119 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1990] 2 S.C.R. 
HELD: I. Interview has its own place in the matter of the selection 
process and the choice of the candidate. Once this is recognised, it 
would he appropriate to require every candidate to pass the interview 
test and for that purpose there should be a basic limit provided. In the 
absence of any prescription of qualifying marks for the interview test 
the prescription of 40% as applicable for the written examination seems 
to be reasonable. [IBC-D] 
Rajesh Sood & Ors. v. Director-General, Employees State In-
surance Corporation & Anr., decided on August 7, 198.<, approved. 
2. 50% of the vacancies existing upto 31st December, 1989, relat-
able to the one-third quota should be filled up out of the penal after 
C 
giving credit to aprointments already made. The remaining vacancies 
should be filled up by holding of a fresh recruitment examination. The 
scheme intended for recruitment should be on the basis of an examina-
tion comprising of written test and interview. In the oral examination 
the pass mark shall be 40% and 40% pass marks shall be insisted separately 
for the written as also the oral test for qualifying in the selection. [123B; D-E] 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Writ Petition No. 226 of 
1986. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia). 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 1263 of 1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.1989 of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in T .A. No. 1146 of 1986. 
Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Dr. Gauri Shankar, C. Mukopadhya, P.N. 
Misra and H.S. Parihar, for the Petitioners. 
Madhava Reddy, Vivek Gambhir, S.K. Gambhir, R.D. 
Upadhyaya and Surender Kamai! for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. Petitioners are employees under the 
State Insurance Corporation, respondent no. 1. According to the 
notification dated 22nd of April, 1977, issued in exercise ot powers 
l 
\ 
-~
.. 
MANJEET SINGH v. E.S.l.C. [MISRA, J.l 
121 
conferred bys. 97(1), (1, 2)(xxx), s. 2A ands. 17(2) of the Employees 
A 
State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which 
came by way of supersession of (he Employees State Insurance Corpo-
-~ 
ration (Recruitment) Regulations. 1965, the post of Insurance Inspec-
' 
tor/Manager Grade II was treated partly as selection and partly as non-
selection. There was no age limit for departmental candidates and 
two-thirds of the vacancies were to be filled up promotion and one-
B 
third by competitive examination under the Rules. By advertisement 
dated 6th August, 1983, applications were invited for filling up the 
one-third vacancies by direct recruitment t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.