P. MOHANAN PILLAI versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 53 · Decided: 23-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
} 
j 
P. MOHANAN PILLAI 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF KERA LA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 23, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Recruitment-Criteria for-Validity-Recruitment to the post of 
Watchman/Messenger/Attender-Candidate topping the written exam not C 
selected-Challenge to-Held: There being no Statutory Rules governing the 
recruitment, practice prevailing when the vacancy arose was to be adhered 
to-Zone of consideration was enlarged, cut-off marks were lowered and I 00 
marks were ftxed for oral interview after publication of result of written 
examination, without assigning good and sufficient reasons, thus, policy D 
decision taken was arbitrary-Also nature of duties on which interview 
marks are a/located not such which requires high intellectual ability-Thus, 
unsuccessful candidate directed to be appointed and selection of candidates 
made set '.lside. 
Appellant was appointed as worker in the Government Company. Twelve E 
posts of Watchman/Messenger/Attender fell vacant and recruitment was not 
governed by any Statutory Rules. All workmen of the company were to be 
considered. Applications were invited. 253 persons applied. Written exam was 
conducted. Appellant stood first and was called for interview among the 36 
candidates who got highest marks. Thereafter, policy decision was taken to F 
call only those candidates who had come within the zone of three times the 
number of posts. Minimum qualification was reduced to 46 marks and 11 more 
persons were permitted to appear in the interview. JOO marks were fixed for 
both written test as well as viva-voce. Appellant was not selected. Appellant 
then filed writ petition on the ground that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were 
appointed by the company, though they were not eligible and that the selection G 
list was not published. Both the writ petition and writ appeal were dismissed. 
Hence the present appeal 
Appellant contended that the High Court failed to take into consideration 
53 
H 
54 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A the fact that the zone of consideration cannot be enlarged arbitrarily; and 
that having regard to the nature of the duties required to be performed by the 
" 
Watchman/Messenger/ Attender, 100 marks could not have been fixed for oral 
interview. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: I.I. Ordinarily rules which were prevailing at the time, when 
the vacancies arose would be adhered to. The qualification must be fixed at 
that time. The eligibility criteria as also the procedures as was prevailing on 
the date of vacancy should ordinarily be followed. [Para 11) [58-D) 
c 
1.2. Selection of the candidates was to be made from amongst the workers 
who had been working in the Company for a long time. Although there may 
not have been any statutory rules governing recruitment to the posts, evidently 
... 
a practice therefor was prevailing. Rule for the said purpose was fixed, namely, 
36 persons would be called for interview from amongst those who were 
D successfully competed the written examination. It is not in dispute that the 
appellant obtained more than 73% marks in the written examination and 
topped the list; and that he was eligible for consideration for appointment in 
the post. Furthermore the minimum qualifying marks in the written test was 
fixed. However, it is not known whether the same was 50% or not, but 
admittedly higher than 46%. (Para 8) (57-E-FJ 
E 
1.3. Why such a decision had been taken after the publication of the 
result of the written examination and after calling 36 candidates for interview 
is not known. Why the Company intended to enlarge the zone of consideration 
from 1 : 3 to 1 : 4 has also not been disclosed. Why the cut-off mark was also 
F 
lowered remained a mystery. (Para 9) (58-B-C) 
1.4. In a given situation, a decision of the State may be changed, but 
therefor good and sufficient reasons must be assigned. The Company failed 
to do so. The decision taken in this behalf smacks of arbitrariness. It 
prejudiced the candidates like the appellant. (Para 10) (58-C-D) 
G 
1.5. The question as to how much marks should be allocated for interview 
would depend upon the post and nature of duties to be performed. The nature 
of duties to be performed on the post of Watchman/Messenger/ Attender is 
~ 
not such which requires a high intellectual ability or any particular trait of 
the candidatE's which is required to be judged by an expert. (Para 14) [59-F) 
H 
j 
• 
-
P. MOHANANPILLAlv

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