MADHUKAR BAKRU PINGALversusSHRI RAJENDRA D. GAIKWAD AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 567
- Decided
- 13 September 1995
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The Tribunal’s direction to appoint the respondent is set aside; the authorities must re‑conduct the written and viva‑voce examinations with an 85 %/15 % weightage and select from all original candidates in accordance with the rules.
Summary
The appellant, Madhukar B. Pingal, was selected and appointed as Police Patil based on a selection scheme that allotted 50 % of the total marks to a written test and 50 % to a viva‑voce. An unsuccessful candidate (Respondent‑I) challenged the appointment before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which held that the 50 % weightage for viva‑voce was arbitrary and set aside the appointment, directing that Respondent‑I be appointed instead. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the Tribunal should have directed a revision of the weightage rather than appointing the challenger. The Court examined whether the Tribunal’s direction was justified and what the appropriate remedial measure should be. It held that the Tribunal’s order to appoint the respondent was not justified and that the correct course was to direct the authorities to re‑conduct the examinations with a revised weightage of 85 % for the written test and 15 % for viva‑voce, considering all candidates who had originally applied. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the interim direction allowing the appellant to continue in service was affirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the allocation of 50 % marks to the viva‑voce component in the selection process is arbitrary and violative of law.
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the appointment of the unsuccessful candidate instead of modifying the selection criteria.
- What is the appropriate remedial order when the weightage of selection criteria is found to be arbitrary?
Subjects
Judgment
MADHUKAR BAKRU PINGAL A
v.
SHRI RAJENDRA D. GAIKWAD AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 13, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY B
AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)
Se1vice Law
Selection--Criteiia,-50% marks for WTitten examination and 50% for C
viva-vocC--Challenge by unsuccessful candidate-T1ibunal holding allocation
of 50% marks for viva- voce arbitraiy-Direction to set aside appointment of
selected candidate and appointment of unsuccessful candidate-Held not
justified-Supreme Court-Direction to conduct selection on the basis of
lower ma1ks in viva-voce and higher marks in w1itten examination.
D
The appellant was selected and appointed as Police Patil. The
selection criteria prescribed 50% marks for written examination and 50%
for viva-voce examination. Respondent-I, an unsuccessful candidate, filed
an application before the Tribunal which held that allocation of 50%
marks in viva- voce was arbitrary. Further the Tribunal set aside the E
appointment of appellant and directed appointment of Respondent- 1.
In appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant that the
appropriate course for the Tribunal was to direct the authorities to select
candidates by prescribing lesser marks for viva voce and higher marks
for written examination. F
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD 1. The direction issued by the Tribunal to appoint the
contesting respondent-I as Police Patil is set aside. Instead, the official
respondents are directed to conduct written examination and viva-voce test G
allocating 85% and 15% of marks respectively and consider the cases of all
those candidates who appeared at the initial examination and make selec-
tion according to rules. Under the interim direction, the appellant is
continuing in service and would continue till a candidate is duly selected
and appointed. [628-H, 629-A, 628-G] H
627
628 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3S.C.R.
A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7081 of
1994.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.94 of the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay in 0.A. No. 987 of 1993.
B A. M. Khanwilkar for the Appellant
S.V. Deshpande for the Respondents
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
c On July 27, 1992 applications were invited to fill up the post of Police
Patil in the village Ambe, Dindori Taluk of Nasik District. Five persons
had applied for the recruitment. The appellant was selected and was
appointed as the Police Patil. On challenge being made by the respondent
No. 1 before the Tribunal, the Tribunal set aside the appointment order of
D the appellant. The Tribunal observed that 50% of marks were reserved for
written examination and 50% marks were for viva-voce and held that the
prescription of 50% of marks for viva-voce is arbitrary as per the law laid
down by this Court. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside ~e appointment of
the appellant and directed to appoint the respondent. Thus, this appeal by
£ special leave.
Mr. Khanwilkar, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that
even assuming .that prescription of 50% of marks for viva- voce is invalid
the appropriate course would have been that a direction w~s given to the
·F respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to prescribe lesser marks for viva-voce and higher
marks for written eXamination and to direct conducting examinations of the
candidates who had applied for afresh and. considering the cases of the
candidates according to law. We find force in the contentioµ. The Tribunal,
instead, has given direction to appoint Respondent No. 1 who was not
selected by the appointing authority. Under the interim direction, the
G appellant is continuing in service and would continue till a candidate is duly
selected and appointed.
In these circumstances, we set aside the direction issued by the
Tribunal to appoint the contesting respondent No. 1 as Police Patil. Instead
H the offici~l respondents are directed to conduct written examination and
M.B. PINGAL v. R.D. GAIKWAD 629
viva-voce test allocating 85% and 15% of marks respectively and consider A
the cases of all those candidates who appeared at the initial examination
and make selection according to rules.
The appeal is accordingly allowed'. No costs.
T.N.A. Appeal allowed. B
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.