RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT AND ORS. versus SUBHASH BALODA AND ORS.

Citation: [2013] 4 S.C.R. 956 · Decided: 11-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2013] 4 S.C.R. 956 
A 
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT AND ORS. 
B 
v. 
SUBHASH BALODA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1099 of 2013) 
FEBRUARY 11, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Service Law - Recruitment/Selection - Allocation of 
certain marks for NCC/Sports and computer course 
C certificates - The certificate marks were made component of 
Interview marks - Unsuccessful candidates challenging the 
bifurcation of the marks of the interview - Single Judge of High 
Court held the same as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 -
Division Bench of High Court upholding the order of Single 
D Judge further recommended that proficiency in NCC/Sports 
or Computer should have been adjudged by the Interview 
Board and marks therefor should have been added in the 
range of O to 5 instead of 7 - On appeal, held: The method 
applied by the selecting authority was not wrong - The 
E 
selection process was not discriminatory and there was no 
breach of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution 
- The High Court has imposed its own reading of the 
requirements of the selection process on the Interview Board 
- It is not the job of the Court to substitute what it thinks 
F 
appropriate for that which selecting authority decided as 
desirable - Proposal of the High Court amounts to re-writing 
the rules for selection, which is impermissible while exercising 
the power of judicial review - Judicial Review - Scope of. 
During recruitment to the post in question, at the time 
G 
of the interview, out of the total marks for interview (i.e. 
25 marks), 7 marks were allocated for the certificates of 
NCC/sports and Computer Course. 
The respondent, who were not selected, filed writ 
H 
956 
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT AND ORS. v. 
957 
SUBHASH BALODA AND ORS. 
petition on the ground that •he Interview Board could not A 
have made the certificate marks a component of interview 
marks, as the splitting of marks was not indicated to them 
in advance and that minimum cut-off marks should have 
been adjudged by excluding the certificate marks. 
B 
Single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition, 
holding that the action of the Interview Board in applying 
minimum cut-off marks, after taking into consideration 
also the certificate marks, that too without disclosing the 
same to the candidates, was aarbitrary and violative of 
Article 14 of the Constitution. Division Bench of the High 
C 
Court, upholding the judgment of the Single Judge, 
further recommended that the proficiency in NCC/Sports 
or in computer course should have been adjudged by the 
Interview .Board and those marks should have been 
added in the range of O to 5. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1. There was nothing wrong in the method 
applied by the appellants in the Selection. There was no 
E 
discrimination whatsoever among the candidates called 
for the interview, nor was there any departure from the 
advertised requirements. One can always say that some 
other method would have been a better method, but it is 
not the job of the Court to substitute what it thinks to be 
appropriate for that which the selecting authority has 
decided as desirable. While taking care of the rights of 
the candidates, the Court cannot lose sight of the 
requirements specified by the selecting authority. What 
F 
the High Court has proposed in the impugned orders 
amounts to re-writing the rules for selection, which was 
G 
clearly impermissible while exercising the power of 
judicial review. [Para 28] [977-D-F] 
K. Manjushree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2008 (3) 
SCC 512: 2008 (2) SCR 1025; Himani Malhotra vs. High 
H 
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 
A Court of Delhi 2008 (7) SCC 11: 2008 (5) SCR 1066 -
distinguished. 
2. The interview board can not be faulted for making 
the certificate marks a component of the 25 interview 
B marks. The appellants had advertised that the NCC/ 
Sports and Computer certificates were 'desirable'. The 
call-letter, specifically called upon the candidates to bring 
their certificates at the time of the Personal Interview, 
accompanied by a declaration by the concerned institute 
C that the course done by the candidate was recognized 
by AICTE or DOEACC. Thus, it was clear that credit was 
to be given to those certificates as a part of the interview. 
The respondents, therefore, can not make any grievance 
that they were taken by surprise by giving of 7 (out of 25) 
0 marks for such certificates to the suc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.