UNION OF INDIA AND ANR versus N. CHANDRASEKHARAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 419 · Decided: 29-01-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
.., 
~ 
---
) 
.. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 
A 
v. 
N. CHANDRASEKHARAN AND ORS. 
JANUARY 29, 1998 
[K. VENKATASWAMI ANDA.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Promotion-Post of Assistant Purchase Officer in Indian 
Space Research Organisation-Selection through written test-Followed by 
interview and assessment of annual confidential reports (ACR)-Al/ocation 
of Marks-30% allotted to interview and 20% to ACRs-Held: having due C 
regard to the level of post and nature of performance expected from incumbent, 
high weightage given to interview and ACR-Hence rational, not arbitrary 
or violative of Articles 14 and 16-Constitution of1ndia, 1950-Articles 14 
and 16. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 115-Estoppel-Candidates made 
aware of procedure for promotion before they appeared for written test and 
before departmental promotion committee-Cannot subsequently raise plea 
that marks allotted to interview and ACR was unduly disproportionate or the 
authorities cannot fix minimum marks to be secured at the interview or in 
ACR. 
The respondents are contestants for promotional post of Assistant 
Purchase Officer. Vide Office Memorandum date 09.07.1987 promotion was 
based on written test followed by interview and assessment of ACR. The 
allocation of marks allotted under the head is 50, 30 and 20 respectively. The 
Respondents, aggrieved by the selection list on account of allotment of 
unduly disproportionate marks to interview and confidential report, 
approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal relying on the ratio laid down in 
Ashok Kumar Yadav's case that "spread" of marks allotted under the head 
of interview was totally unreasonable and arbitrary, held the allotment of 
marks to be arbitrary and unreasonable in the present case. 
In this appeal challenging the Tribunal's Order, the appellant contended 
that due regard had to be given to the level of post and the nature of 
performance expected from the candidate. Therefore, the marks allotted for 
the interview cannot b~ disproportionately high or spread of marks arbitrary. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
419 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
420 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1998] l S.C.R. 
A 
JiELD : 1. The Tribunal went wrong in applying the ratio laid down by 
B 
c 
this court in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case that the spread of marks allotted 
'f-
under the head of interview was totally unreasonable and arbitrary, while 
upsetting the 1990 selection list and giving directions to prepare a new 
selection list in accordance with that direction. [430-D] 
Ashok Kumar Yadav's case, (1985] 4 SCC 417, held inapplicable. 
2. Due regard has to be given to the level of post and the nature of 
performance expected from the incumbent. Therefore, the marks given to the 
interview cam.ot be disproportionately high or spread of marks arbitrary. 
(425-D] 
3. There was no scope for arbitrary exercise of selection or favouritism 
beyond any reasonable doubt. Even though in the pleadings vaguely malafide 
was raised, nothing was established nor the Tribunal discussed about it. 
Therefore, in the absence of any malafide pleaded and established and in the 
facts and circumstances of this case, the importance given to the interview 
D cannot by any means be termed as arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 
16 of the Constitution. [426-A-B] 
4. The candidates were made aware of the procedure for promotion 
before they sat for the written test and before they appeared before the 
Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, they cannot turn around and 
E contend later when they found they were not selected by challenging that 
procedure and contending that the marks prescribed for interview and 
confidential reports are disproportionately high and the authorities cannot 
fix a minimum to be secured either at interview or in the assesssment on 
confidential reports. [425-C] 
F 
Mehmood Alam Tariq and Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others, 
[1988) 3 SCC 241; C.P. Katra v. Air India Through its Managing Director, 
Bombay and Others, [1994] Supp. 1SCC454 and State of UP. v. Rafiquddin 
[1987] Supp. SCC 401, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5477 
G of 1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.92 of the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, Eranakulam in Kerala in 0.A. No. 21 of 1991. 
V.C. Mahajan, (Rajiv Nanda) and V. K. Verma for the Appellants. 
H 
Roy Abraham and M.M. Kashyap for the Respondents. 
U.O.I v. N. CHANDRASEKHARAN [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 
421 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

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