YOGESH YADAV versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 194 · Decided: 16-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 194 
YOGESH YADAV 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6799 of 2013) 
AUGUST 16, 2013 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Selection - Benchmark - Fixation of, for appointment to 
Post of Deputy Director (Law) in the Other Backward Class 
C (OBC Category) in the office of Competition Commission of 
India (CCI) - Challenge to - Held: The entire selection was 
undertaken in accordance with the criterion laid down at the 
time of recruitment process - Aftet conducting the interview, 
marks of the written test and viva voce were to be added -
o However, since benchmark was not stipulated for giving the 
appointment, a decision was taken to give appointments only 
to those persons who secured 70% marks or above marks in 
the unreserved category and 65% or above marks in the 
reserved category - In absence of any rule on this aspect in 
E the first instance, this did not amount to changing the "rules 
of the game" - Fixation of such a benchmark in order to have 
meritorious persons for those posts, was legitimate giving a 
demarcating choice to the employer - There was no change 
in the criteria of selection which remained of 80 marks for 
F written test and 20 marks for interview without any subsequent 
introduction of minimum cut off marks in the interview - It was 
short listing which was done by fixing the benchmark, to recruit 
best candidates on rational and reasonable basis - That was 
clearly permissible under the law. 
G 
Appointments to vacancies in the post of Deputy 
Director (Law) in the Other Backward Class (OBC 
Category) were to be made in the office of Competition 
Commission of India (CCI). CCI issued notification 
through public notice inviting applications for such post. 
H 
194 
YOGESH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA 
195 
The three appellants (who belonged to the OBC category) 
A 
were amongst the candidates who appeared in the 
written test. After qualifying the written test, they also 
faced the interview. However, their names did not appear 
in the list of candidates finally selected. 
On obtaining the information from the respondents 
under the Right to Information Act 2005, the appellants 
learnt that the respondents had fixed the benchmark of 
B 
70 marks for the General Category and 65 marks for the 
Reserved Category candidates and since the total marks 
obtained by all these appellants were less than 65, that C 
was the reason for their non-selection. This fixation of 
benchmark agitated the appellants as according to them 
it amounted to changing the selection procedure mid-
way, which is illegal. 
D 
The appellants filed writ petition contending that their 
non-selection was the result of alteration of the 
prescribed mode of selection mid-way i.e. after the 
initiation of recruitment process which was impermissible. 
The appellants contended that the selection criteria was 
E 
changed arbitrarily that too after the advertisement and 
the law did not permit the respondents to change the 
rules of the game after the game had started. The precise 
contention in this behalf was that the benchmark which 
was fixed at 70 and 65 marks or above in the General and 
F 
Reserved category respectively for the purposes of 
selection was not mentioned earlier i.e. before the start 
of selection process, either in the advertisement or 
otherwise. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, 
holding that fixation of the benchmark was legal and 
G 
justified, and therefore the instant appeal. 
The question which therefore arose for consideration 
before this Court was whether fixation of benchmark 
amounted to change in the criteria of selection in the 
H 
196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A midstream when there was no such stipulation in that 
regard in the advertisement. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, the instructions to the 
B examinees provided that written test will carry 80% marks 
and 20% marks were assigned for the interview. It was 
also provided that candidates who secured minimum 50% 
marks in the general category and minimum 40% marks 
in the reserved categories in the written test would qualify 
C for the interview. Entire selection was undertaken in 
accordance with the aforesaid criterion which was laid 
down at the time of recruitment process. After conducting 
the interview, marks of the written test and viva voce were 
to be added. However, since benchmark was not 
D stipulated for giving the appointment, in the instan

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