Supreme Court of India
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT AND ORS.versusSUBHASH BALODA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 90
- Decided
- 11 February 2013
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- G S SINGHVI
Holding
The allocation of 7 marks for NCC/Sports and computer certificates within the 25‑mark interview was valid and did not violate Articles 14 or 16; the High Court’s direction to alter the marking scheme was impermissible.
Summary
The Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha Secretariats recruited Security Assistants Grade‑II through a four‑stage process, awarding 25 marks for the personal interview, of which 7 marks were allocated for NCC/Sports and computer‑course certificates that were advertised as ‘desirable’. Unsuccessful candidates challenged the inclusion of these certificate marks in the interview total, arguing that the split was not disclosed and that the cut‑off should be calculated on the remaining 18 marks, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 16. The Delhi High Court Single Judge held the practice arbitrary and the Division Bench affirmed, also directing a different marking scale (0‑5). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the method of allocating the 7 marks was a valid exercise of the selecting authority’s discretion, was uniformly applied, and did not breach constitutional guarantees. The Court held that the High Court had overstepped by rewriting the selection rules, which is beyond the scope of judicial review. Consequently, the High Court judgments were set aside and the writ petition dismissed.
Issues considered
- The legality of allocating marks for NCC/Sports and computer certificates as part of the 25‑mark interview.
- Whether the allocation of such marks, without prior specific notice, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Whether the cut‑off percentage for the interview should be computed on the 18 marks excluding certificate marks.
- The propriety of the High Court directing a different marking scheme and its impact on the scope of judicial review.
Subjects
service lawrecruitmentselectioninterview marksNCCsports certificatecomputer certificateArticle 14Article 16judicial reviewpublic employmentmerit
Judgment
(2013] 4 S.C.R. 956
A RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT AND ORS.
v.
SUBHASH BALODA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1099 of 2013)
FEBRUARY 11, 2013
B
[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. D
Allowing the appeal, the Court
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
F
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
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)
marks for such certificates to the successful candidates.
0
Nor can the respondents say that any prejudice is
caused to them, since all candidates having such
certificates were uniformly given 5 and/or 2 marks for the
certificates, and those who were not having them were
not given such marks. The process cannot, therefore, be
E called arbitrary. [Para 23) [973-G-H; 974-A-C]
3. In the present case, the interview was to be of 25
marks. The view which has appealed to the Judges of the
High Court would mean that the cut-off marks (say 50%)
F will have to be obtained out of 18 marks, whereas the
advertisement clearly stated that the cut-off marks had to
be obtained in the Written Test and the Personal
Interview. This meant obtaining cut-off marks out of 25
marks set out for interview as well. The consequence of
G the view which was accepted by the High Court would
be that it might as well happen that candidates whci did
not have the NCC/Sports certificates or any computer
course certificates would obtain higher marks out of 18
marks, and would top the list. On the other hand, the
H ~i!ndidates who had these certificates might not get the
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT AND ORS. v. 959
SUBHASH BALODA AND ORS.
cut-off marks out of 18, or even if they got those marks, A
they might land at the lower level in the inter-se seniority
in the merit order for selection. This was certainly not
meant to be achieved by the selection process, when
these certificates were declared in advance as 'desirable'.
[Para 24] [974-D-G] B
4. The recommendation of the Division Bench that
the proficiency of the candidates producing certificates
be assessed on a scale of O to 5 would mean holding one
more test as far as computer course certificate is c
concerned, or asking the candidates concerned, to
exhibit their skill in a particular sport or as NCC Cadet.
That was certainly not contemplated in the advertisement.
The advertisement only stated that the NCC/Sport
certificate and the computer course certificate recognised D
by AICTE/DOEACC were desirable. The call-letter
specifically stated they would be given credit at the time
of interview. The Joint Recruitment Cell did not want to
go behind those certificates once they were from the
proper authorities, and therefore, the interview board fairly
granted all the marks to the candidates who produced E
those certificates, making them a component out of 25
marks. It cannot be disputed that the appellants applied
a uniform standard. [Para 25] [974-H; 975-A-C)
5. It was for the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha F
Secretariat to decide what qualifications they expected in
the Security Assistants. They did want persons with
Sports/NCC and Computer course certificates. Therefore,
they specifically mentioned those certificates as
desirable. Specifying 5+2 marks for these certificates was G
in consonance with the objective to be achieved. The
method followed by the interview board in giving these
certificates 7 out of 25 marks cannot, therefore, be faulted
as denying equal opportunity in the matter of public
employment. Dissimilar candidates could not be expected
H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 4 S.C.R.
A to receive similar treatment. Thus, in the present process
of selection, there is no breach either of Article 14 or 16
of the Constitution of India. [Para 25] [975-E-G]
6. The High Court imposed its own reading of the
requirements of the selection process on to the interview
8
board. It was for the interview board to decide which
method to follow. The interview board had followed a
particular pattern earlier in the year 2006, which was
upheld by a Single Judge and the Division Bench of High
C Court. The interview board was following the same
pattern. [Para 26] [975-H; 976-A]
Haryana Public Service Commission vs. Amarjeet Singh
1999 SCC (L&S) 1451 - relied on.
0 7. In the present matter it was made clear in the call
letters that the relevant certificates would be given credit
at the time of interview, since they were 'desirable', and
therefore there was no question of any prejudice or lack
of fairness on the part of the interview board in giving the
E specified marks for the certificates. [Para 27] [977-B-C]
Barot Vijay Kumar Balakrishna and Ors. vs. Modh
VinayKumar Dasrathlal and Ors. 2011 (7) SCC 308: 2011 (7)
SCR 154 - relied on.
F Mahesh Kumar and Anr. vs. Union of India 151 (2008)
Delhi Law Times 353; State of U.P. vs. Synthetics and
Chemicals Ltd. 1991 (4) SCC 139; Union of India vs.
Dhanwanti Devi 1996 (6) SCC 44: 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 32;
Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 2010 (12)
G SCC 576 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
151 (2008) DLT 353 referred to Para 10
1991 (4) sec 139 referred to Para 11
H
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT AND ORS. v. 961
SUBHASH BALODA AND ORS.
1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 32 referred to Para 11 A
2010 (12) sec 576 referred to Para 20
2008 (2) SCR 1025 distinguished Para 22
2008 (5) SCR 1066 distinguished Para 22 B
1999 sec (L&S) 1451 relied on Para 26
2011 (7) SCR 154 relied on Para 27
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1099 of 2013. c
From the Judgment & Order dated 29.11.2011 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 839 of 2011.
Rakesh Kr. Khanna, Abha R. Sharma, D.S. Parmar, D
Susheel Tamar for the Appellants.
Jyoti Singh, Sudarshan Rajan for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
H.L. GOKHALE J. 1. Leave Granted.
2. This appeal raises the question with respect to the
scope of judicial review in the matter of selections and
appointments made by Public Authorities. A learned Single
Judge of the Delhi High Court has found-fault with the process F
of selection of Security Assistants Grade-II, conducted, in the
year 2009, by the Joint Recruitment Cell of the Parliament of
India (Appellant No. 3), for the Rajya Sabha Secretariat and Lok
Sabha Secretariat (Appellant Nos. 1 & 2). By his judgment and
order dated 1.9.2011, rendered in Writ petition (C) 4835/2011 G
filed by the Respondents (unsuccessful candidates) he has
directed the appellants to consider the claim of the
Respondents for selection, by the process approved by him.
The appeal therefrom, filed by the appellants herein, being LPA
No. 839 of 2011 has been dismissed by a Division bench of H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
A that High Court by its judgment and order dated 29.11.2011,
which has led to the present appeal by special leave.
Facts leading to this appeal:-
3. This appeal arises on the background of following facts.
B Sometime in the year 2009, Appellant No: 3 issued an
advertisement bearing No. 04/2009, inviting applications for
various posts such as those of Research Assistants, Junior
Parliamentary Reporters, Stenographers, Translators, Security
Assistants Grade-II, and Junior Clerks. In the present matter we
C are concerned with the posts of Security Assistants Grade-II.
In this advertisement, 37 vacancies were advertised in the
cadre of Security Assistants Grade-II, in the Lok Sabha
Secretariat, and 19 vacancies in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat.
D 4. The scheme of the examination for these posts was also
incorporated in the advertisement. The examination for the
recruitment of Security Assistants Grade-II was to be conducted
in four stages. They were as follows:-
(1) Preliminary Examination,
E
(2) Physical Measurement and Field Tests,
(3) Descriptive Type Written Papers,
(4) Personal Interview
F
The candidates were expected to be graduates in any
discipline, provided they met the requisite physical
requirements as per the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Rules.
As per the approved scheme of the examination, the
G recruitment of the candidates depended on their performance
in each of the four stages. Each test was an elimination round
for the subsequent test. The candidates were required to attain
the prescribed standards, and to qualify in each of the stages.
However, the marks secured by them in the third and fourth
H stage, viz. descriptive type written paper and personal interview,
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT AND ORS. v. 963
SUBHASH BALODA AND ORS. [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
A
were to be considered for determining the inter-se seniority in
the merit order for selection.
5. (i) The advertisement specified as 'desirable', certain
additional qualifications, which were as follows:-
B
"Desirable: 'C' Certificate in NCC or sportsmen of
distinction who have represented a State or the Country
at the National or International level or who have
represented a University in recognised inter-university
tournament.
c
Note: In case of vacancies in Rajya Sabha Secretariat:
(i} Certificate in computer course recognised by A/GTE/
DOEACC or courses equivalent to 'O' Level in terms of
syllabu.<> and duration of course as prescribed by D
DOEACC, is also a desirable qualification.
(AICTE- All India Council for Technical Education)
(DOEACC- Department of Electronics Accreditation of
Computer Courses)" E
(ii) The advertisement specifically stated that for these posts:
"Personal inteNiew will carry 25 ma/'Ks. Candidates will
have to secure the minimum qualifying marks in the
Personal lnteNiew. " F
(iii) Para XV of the advertisement laid down the cut off
percentage of marks. This para reads as follows:-
"XV.CUT OFF PERCENTAGE OF MARKS: The G
minimum cut of percentages of ma/'Ks in Written Test and
Personal lnteNiew in an examination is 50%, 45% and
40% for vacancies in GENERAL, OBC and SC/ST
categories respectively. The above percentages are
relaxable by 5% in case of physically handicapped H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
A persons of relevant disability and category for
appointment against the vacancies reserved in Lok
Sabha Secretariat for physically handicapped persons.
These percentages are the minimum marks which a
candidate is required to secure in each paper/component
B and aggregate in the written test and in aggregate in the
personal interview. However, the cut-off percentages may
be raiserJ or lowered in individual component/paper!
aggregate to arrive at reasonable vacancy: candidate
ratio."
c 6. Out of the candidates who wrote the descriptive type
written paper, 68 candidates secured the minimum qualifying
marks, and were called for the personal interview· of 25 marks.
The break-up of marks for Personal Interview was as follows:-
D "a) Dress, manners and appearance 6 marks
b) Behaviour in communication 6 marks
(whether courteous and disciplined)
c) General awareness and knowledge
of duties involved security service 6 marks
E d) Skill and Extra-curricular activities 5 marks
I. NCC C- Certificate 5 marks
II. Sports
International level/national level 5 marks
University Level 4 marks
F e) Certificate in computer operations 2 marks "
7. It is the case of the appellant that the breakup of these
marks for the personal interview was approved by the Secretary
Generals of both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, in 2001. The
candidates who were called to appear for the personal interview
G were sent call-letters, specifically informing them that they had
to bring the original certificates of NCC/Sports or the certificate
of the computer course. Specimen call-letter dated 3.5.2011
sent to a candidate is reproduced herein below. It reads as
follows:-
H
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT AND ORS. v. 965
SUBHASH BALODA AND ORS. [H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
"PARLIAMENT OF IND/A A
(JOINT RECRUITMENT CELL)
RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF SECURITY
ASSISTANT GRADE-II IN LOK SABHA AND RAJYA
SABHA SECRETARIATS
B
PARLIAMENT HOUSE ANNEXE,
NEW DELHl-110001 No. 713/SA-l/(open)-JRC/2010
Dated: the 3rd May 2011
CALL LETTER C
On the basis of your performance in the Physical
Measurement Tests, Field Tests and Descriptive Type
Written Papers held in December 2010, you have been
declared successful for appearing in the Personal D
Interview to be held on Sunday, the 29th May, 2011 in
Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.
2. Your Roll Number is 105999.
3. You are requested to be present at 9.30 A.M.
sharp at the Reception Office, Parliament House E
Annexe, New Delhi, from where you will be conducted to
the venue of interview.
4. ·You are also required to bring the following
documents/testimonials for verification at the time of F
Personal lnterview:-
(i) Original certificates of Matriculation or equivalent
examination as proof of date of birth.
(ii) All original certificates of Educational and other
qualifications. G
(iii) All original certificates of NCC/Sports.
(iv) Original certificate of Hill area resident, if any,
issued by the competent authority.
H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 4 S.C.R.
A (v) Original Caste Certificate issued by the
competent authority (in case of SC, ST and OBC
candidates).
5. In case, a candidate has done a computer
course, he/she should bring the original certificate
B thereof at the time of Personal Interview. However,
the credit. for the same shall be given only if it is
accompanied by a declaration by the concerned
institute that the computer course done by the
candidate is recognised by the All India Council for
c Technical Education (AICTE)!Department of
Electronic Accreditation of Computer Courses
(DOEACC) or the course is equivalent to 'O' level in
terms of syllabus and duration of course as
prescribed by DOEACC.
D
6. The minimum qualifying marks in Personal
Interview are 50%, 45% and 40% for vacancies in
General, OBC and SC/ST categories, respectively.
7. Selection will be made on the basis of overall
E performance of the candidates in the descriptive type
written papers and the personal interview, subject to the
availability of vacancies.
8. The decision of the Joint recruitment Cell
F regarding a/location of the successful candidates to either
the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha Secretnriat shall be
final.
9. You should bring this call letter to the venue of
Personal Interview without fail.
G
Sdl-
(A.S.K. DAS)
Under Secretary"
(emphasis supplied)
H
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT AND ORS. v. · 967
SUBHASH BALODA AND ORS. [H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
8. In was pointed out on behalf of the appellants that at the A
time of the interview the exercise of chE?cking the certificates
was undertaken by the officers of the Joint Recruitment Cell,
by verifying the documents prior to the personal Interview. The
officers simply assisted the interview board, and saved their
time. This exercise was done in the presence of all the B
candidates, and they had the full knowledge thereof. A
candidate producing the 'C' Certificate of NCC was entitled to
full 5 marks. Similarly a candidate producing the computer
. course certificate was entitled to 2 marks. There was no
discretion in awarding these marks. These marks were c
deemed to be awarded by the members of the interview board.
After the checking of the certificates and the oral interview, 27
candidates were selected for the posts of Security Assistants
Grade-II for Lok Sabha as against 37 vacancies, and 13 were
selected for Rajya Sabha as against 19 vacancies.
D
9. The respondents were some of the candidates who
participated in this process but were not selected. They filed a
Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi bearing Writ Petition
(C) No. 4835 of 2011. The respondents principally raised two
contentions: (1) firstly, that the splitting of the marks, in the E
interview, was not indicated to them in advance, and (2)
secondly, attainment of minimum cut-off marks (say 50% for the
general category) be adjudged out of 18 marks ear-marked for
the oral interview, and the marks for the NCC or the computer
course certificates be considered only thereafter. F
10. The appellants herein pointed out before the Learned
Single Judge that the issue v.as no longer res-integra, and had
been decided in a judgment rendered by a Single Judge of the
Delhi High Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar & Anr. Vs G
Union of India 151 (2008) Delhi Law Times 353. It was a case
of selection to the very cadre of Security Assistants Grade-II in
the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, in the year 2006. The judgment
of the Learned Single Judge, which was confirmed by a Division
Bench, had held that prescribing the minimum cut-off for the
H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
A skills in the interview could not be faulted. The Learned Single
Judge had also observed that the decision to assign minimum
50% marks for the interview was arrived at 'in a thorough and
scientific manner.'
11. In the present matter, the Learned Single Judge,
8
however, distinguished the case before him from the decision
in Mahesh Kumar (supra) by holding that no arguments were
advanced in that case that the splitting up of the interview marks
(as 18 +7) was not justified, and that in any event it was not
specified in the advertisement. The Learned Single Judge held
C that the question of fairness of the selection process was not
raised in that matter and therefore, he could go into it, since
the doctrine of sub-silentio operates as an exception to the rule
of precedent. He relied upon two decisions of this Court in State
of U.P. Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. reported in 1991
D (4) SCC 139 and Union of India Vs. Dhanwanti Devi reported
in 1996 (6) sec 44 in support.
12. Having decided to go into this issue, the Learned
Single Judge in terms held, in para 25 of his Judgment, that
E allotting 7 marks for the certificates out of the 25 marks for the
interview had resulted in elimination of those candidates who
had otherwise obtained the minimum qualifying marks out of
18 marks. He further held that even if marks were to be given
for the certificates, they ought to have been in addition to the
F qualifying marks, and ought not to have been used to eliminate
those who had otherwise qualified as per the marks in the
remaining portion of the interview.
13. The Learned Judge, thereafter, held in paragraph 26
as follows:-
G
"26. The action of the Respondent in applying the criteria
of minimum qualifying percentage to twenty-five marks
and not to 18 marks which related to the actual interview
and that too without disclosing this change either in the
H advertisement or to the candidates before the interview
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT AND ORS. v. 969
SUBHASH BALODA AND ORS. [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. A
It has resulted in the unfair elimination of those
Petitioners who have scored the minimum qualifying
percentage (50% for General Category, 45% OBC and
40% SC/ST) in both the written test as well as in the actual
inteNiew.• B
14. The Learned Single Judge allowed the petition by his
judgment and order dated 1.9.2011, but confined the benefit
of his judgment and order to the petitioners before the court,
and directed that on applying the criteria as suggested by him, C
if any of the petitioners are found to have qualified, they be
offered appointments to the posts either in Lok Sabha or in the
Rajya Sabha Secretariat.
15. The appellants carried the matter in Letters Patent
Appeal to the Division Bench which accepted the view-point D
that had appealed to the Learned Single Judge. The Division
Bench dismissed the LP.A No. 839 of 2011 by its judgment
and order dated 29.11.2011. The Division Bench, however,
extended the benefit of the principle laid down by the Learned
Single Judge across the board to all those who had E
participated in the selection process. The Division Bench went
further ahead in another aspect. With respect to the marks for
participation in NCC or having done the computer course, it
observed as follows:-
"3 ......... It was believed by us that mere participation in
F
NCC/Sports and/or undergoing a course in Computer
Operations would not entitle a candidate to the maximum
marks of 5 & 2 respectively prescribed therefor and it was
for the lnteNiew Board to assess the proficiency and
extent of participation of the candidate in the respective G
fields and the marks to be a/located therefore may vary
from zero to five· in case of NCC/Sports and zero to two
in the case of certificate in Computer Operations ......... •
16. The Division Bench, therefore, accepted the H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
A proposition laid down by the Single Judge that the eligibility
marks for interview were to be computed out of 18 marks only.
It further directed that where the proficiency in NCC/Sports or
in computer course was to be judged by the Interview Board,
those marks be added in the range of zero to five as per its
B observations in paragraph 3 quoted above. Being aggrieved
by these two judgments this appeal has been filed.
Submissions by the rival parties:
17. Mr. R.K. Khanna, Learned Senior Counsel appearing
C for the appellant submitted that the Learned Single Judge as
well as the Division Bench have gone into an area where they
ought not to have gone, while exercising judicial review. In his
submission, the advertisement had clearly stated that the C-
certificates in NCC or the Sport certificates or the certificates
D in computer course were 'desirable'. The call letter specifically
called upon the candidates to come with the original
certificates. How the marks ought to be given, out of 25
interview marks, was an aspect to be decided by the interview
board. He pointed out that even so, to avoid arbitrariness, the
E splitting of the marks was effected as per the decision of the
Secretaries of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, arrived at way
back in 2001. Previous selections were also done on that basis
in 2006, and they were upheld by a Single Judge and a
Division Bench of Delhi High court. It was, therefore, not
F expected of the High Court to go into that controversy once
again. In any case assuming that the controversy could be gone
into afresh, while deciding the petition the Court had gone into
the question as to how the interview board ought to have given
the marks, which was outside the scope of judicial review.
G Secondly, the Court ignored that the marks were given to the
certificates uniformly, and in that there was no discrimination
whatsoever. In his submission, there was no occasion for the
court to impose its reading of the relevant requirements on to
the interview board.
H 18. Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT AND ORS. v. 971
SUBHASH BALODA AND ORS. [H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
the respondents, on the other hand submitted that the Learned A
Single Judge of the High Court was right in holding that Mahesh
Kumar (supra) had not considered the issue in the manner in
which it was placed before the High Court in the present matter.
The advertisement clearly meant an interview of 25 marks. The
splitting of the marks of interview under various categories was B
not informed to the respondents anytime prior to the interview.
If the oral interview was of 18 marks, then the cut-off marks
ought to have been assessed out of 18 marks, and the marks
for the certificates ought to have been added subsequently. The
manner in which the marks for the interview were allotted was C
arbitrary, and it resulted into denial of equal opportunity in public
employment. She, therefore, submitted that the decisions of the
High Court did not call for interference by this Court.
Consideration of the submissions:
'
19. The first submission of Mr. Khanna has been that the D
procedure adopted by the appellants had been approved by
the High Court earlier in Mahesh Kumar (supra) and the same
procedure was being followed this time also. He submitted that
if we look into the judgment in Mahesh Kumar (supra), the
same pattern of allotment of marks for the posts in this very E
cadre is reproduced in para 14 of the judgment. In the present
matter also the single Judge has accepted in para 15 of his
judgment that the qualification requirements in both the cases
were the same. On the format of allotting the marks the Learned
Single Judge observed in Mahesh Kumar is as follows:- F
"17. For recruiting candidates to a particular post
a procedure is prescribed by the experts in the field after
carrying out the necessary research taking into
consideration the requirement of the job and nature of
employment. One should not lose sight of the fact that if G
the selection process is divided into series of steps then
each step has a purpose to serve and has been included
with an objective, be it written test/physical test or an
interview........ The procedure devised by the
respondent eliminates arbitrariness to a great extent H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
A as it is not just the whim of the members of the
interview board. There is proper format for evaluation
which is almost akin to another written examination. The
format for evaluation has different marks for different traits
which are detailed in earlier paragraph.
B
29. In the present case, the norms were approved
by the Secretary Generals of the Lok Sabha and Rajya
Sabha and in order to minimize any arbitrariness or
personal perception, separate marks were allocated for
c dress; manners and appearance; behaviour in
communication(whether courteous and disciplined);
general awareness and knowledge of duties involved in
security services; skill and extracurricular activities. In the
oral interview, the marks were also to be given on the
D basis whether the candidates had participated either
in NCC or sports or paramilitary forces and the
weightage was also given for knowledge of computer
operations. With this detailed breakup of different heads
under which, in the interview the marks were awarded to
E the candidates, it is reasonable to infer that while
assigning minimum 50% marks in viva voce; the
decision was arrived at in a thorough and scientific
manner ...... "
(emphasis supplied)
F
The judgment of the Learned Single Judge in Mahesh Kumar
was left undisturbed by the Division Bench, Mr. Khanna,
therefore, submitted with emphasis that once the scheme of
selection was approved by the Division Bench, the Learned
G Single Judge in the present matter ought not to have
entertained the contention that the submissions raised in the
present matter were not raised earlier.
20. It was also submitted that the respondents having
participated in the selection process, it was not permissible for
H them to challenge the recruitment process subsequently.
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT AND ORS. v. 973
SUBHASH BALODA AND ORS. [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Manish A
Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2010 (12)
sec 576 in that behalf.
21. As against the submissions of the appellants, t h e
submission of the respondents has been that although they
secured high marks in the overall performance i.e the written B
test and the interview combined, they found that other
candidates were selected though they had overall less merit
than them, and yet they were shown as having secured higher
marks. After making an enquiry under the Right to Information
Act, they came to know that the selected candidates were C
given more marks for their having the NCC and /or Computer
Course Certificates, leading to the selection of candidates
having less merit. They contended that the method of splitting
up of marks was not informed to them. This was unjust,
discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the D
Constitution of India.
22. The Learned Single Judge in his impugned Judgment
has referred to the cases of K. Manjushree Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh reported in 2008 (3) SCC 512 and Himani Malhotra
Vs. High Court of Dehi reported in 2008 (7) SCC 11. The E
factual situation in these two cases is however, quite different
from the one in the present case. In Manjushree (supra), the
minimum cut-off marks were prescribed after the interviews
were over, and after the first merit list was prepared. In Himani
Malhotra (supra) there was no indication in the advertisement F
about the minimum qualifying marks for the interview and the
same were introduced by the selecting committee after the
written test was over and after the date for oral interview was
postponed.
23. The question before us is whether the interview board G
can be faulted for making the certificate marks a component
of the 25 interview marks, and whether thereby the candidates
were irr any way taken by surprise. In this connection we must
note that the appellants had advertised that the NCC/Sports and
Computer certificates were 'desirable'. The call-letter, in H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
A paragraph 5 thereof, specifically called upon the candid~tes to
bring their certificates at the time of the Personal Interview. It
further stated that credit for the same shall be given only if the
certificate was accompanied by a declaration by the concerned
institute that the course done by the candidate was recognized
B 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) marks for such
certificates to the successful candidates. Nor can the
c respondents say that any prejudice is caused to them, since
all candidates having such certificates were uniformly given 5
and/or 2 marks for the certificates, and those who were not
having them were not given such marks. The process cannot,
therefore, be called arbitrary.
D 24. The decisions rendered by the High Court were
erroneous for one more reason. In the present case, the
interview was to be of 25 marks. The view which has appealed
to the Learned Judges of the High Court would mean that the
cut-off marks (say 50%) will have to be obtained out of 18 marks,
E whereas the advertisement clearly stated that the cut-off marks
had to be obtained in the Written Test and the Personal
Interview. This meant obtaining cut-off marks out of 25 marks
set out for interview as well. The consequence of the view which
is accepted by the High Court will be that it may as well happen
F that candidates who did not have the NCC/Sports certificates
or any computer course certificates will obtain higher marks out
of 18 marks, and will top the list. On the other hand the
candidates who have these certificates may not get the cut-off
marks out of 18, or even if they get those marks, they may land
G at the lower level in the inter-se seniority in the merit order for
selection. This was certainly not meant to be achieved by the
selection process, when these certificates were declared in
advance as 'desirable'.
25. In the impugned order the Division Bench has
H recommended in its judgment, as quoted above that the
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAr AND ORS. v. 975
SUBHASH BALODA AND ORS. [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
proficiency of the candidates producing certificates be A
assessed on a scale of O to 5. That will mean holding one more
test as far as computer course certificate is concerned, or
asking the candidates concerned to exhibit their skill in a
particular sport or as NCC Cadet. That was certainly not
contemplated in the advertisement. The advertisement only B
stated that the NCC/Sport certificate and the computer course
certificate recognised by AICTE/DOEACC were desirable. The
call-letter specifically stated they will be given credit at the time
of interview. The Joint Recruitment Cell did not want to go
behind those certificates once they were from the proper c
authorities, and therefore, the interview board fairly granted all
the marks to the candidates who produced those certificates,
making them a component out of 25 marks. It cannot be
disputed that the appellants have applied a uniform standard.
The respondents who had filed the petition were all constables. D
The posts of Security Assistants were being filled from amongst
them. Although, dress, manners and appearance was given 6
marks, behavior in communication was allotted 6 marks and
general awareness and knowledge of duties involved in security
service was allotted 6 marks, what was 'desirable' was having E
the NCC/Sports or Computer course certificate. It was for the
Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Secretariat to decide what
qualifications they expected in the Security Assistants. They did
want persons with Sports/NCC and Computer course
certificates. Therefore, they specifically mentioned those
certificates as desirable. Specifying 5+2 marks for these F
certificates was in consonance with the objective to be
achieved. The method followed by the interview board in giving
these certificates 7 out of 25 marks cannot, therefore, be faulted
as denying equal opportunity in the matter of public
employment. Dissimilar candidates could not be expected to G
receive similar treatment. Thus, in the present process of
selection, there is no breach either of Article 14 or 16 of the
Constitution of India.
26. What the High Court has done is to impose its own
reading of the requirements of the selection process on to the H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 4 S.C.R.
A interview board. It was for the interview board to decide which
method to follow. The interview board had followed a particular
pattern earlier in the year 2006, which was upheld by a Single
Judge and the Division Bench of Delhi High Court. The
interview board was following the same pattern. We may at this
B stage refer to an order passed by this Court in Haryana Public
SeNice Commissicn Vs. Amarjeet Singh reported in 1999
SCC (L&S) 1451. In that matter the issue was with respect to
the selection for the post of Agricultural Engineers and Subject
Matter Specialists in the Department of Agriculture. The
c Haryana Public Service Commission had allocated marks for
higher qualification and specialized training to the extent of 40%
of the marks. The High Court had interfered therewith as being
arbitrary and directed the Commission to send the names of
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for appointment after stating as to
D what marks should have been allotted to them in the interview.
This Court held that though the standard adopted by the Public
Commission may be defective, the same standard was applied
to all, and did not prejudice Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 or any
of the candidates. The Court observed that:-
E "3 ....... When uniform process had been adopted in
respect of all and selections had been made, it was highly
inappropriate for the High Court to have examined the
matter in further detail and to have allocated marks to the
two candidates and thereafter directed the appellant
Commission to select them."
F
27. In Barot VijayKumar Balakrishna and Ors. Vs. Modh
VinayKumar Dasrathlal and Ors. reported in 2011 (7) SCC
308 the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution
governing the selection process for the posts of Assistant Public
G Prosecutor in the State of Gujarat mandated that there would
be minimum qualifying marks each for the written test and the
oral interview. In that case cut-off marks for viva-voce were not
specified in the advertisement. As observed by this Court, in
view of that omission, there were only two courses open. One,
H to carry on with the selection process, and to complete it without
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT AND ORS. v. 977
SUBHASH BALODA AND ORS. [H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
fixing any cut-off marks for the viva-voce, and to prepare the A
select list on the basis of the aggregate of marks obtained by
the candidates in the written test and the viva voce. That would
have been clearly wrong, and in violation of the statutory rules
governing the selection. The other course was to fix the cut-off
marks for the viva voce, and to notify the candidates called for B
interview. This course was adopted by the commission just two
or three days before the interview. Yet, it did not cause any
prejudice to the candidates, and hence the.Court did not
interfere in the selection process. In the present matter it was
made clear in the call letters that the relevant certificates willc
be given credit at the time of interview, since they were
'desirable', and therefore there was no question of any prejudice
or lack of fairness on the· part of the interview board in giving
the specified marks for the certificates.
28. Having noted this factual and legal scenario, in our view D
there was nothing wrong in the method applied by the appellants
in the Selection of the Security Assistants Grade-II. There was
no discrimination whatsoever among the candidates called for
the interview, nor any departure from the advertised
requirements. One can always say that some other method E
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 clearly
impermissible while exercising the power of judicial review.
29. For the reasons stated above we allow this appeal and
set-aside the impugned judgments of the Single Judge as well G
as that of the Division Bench. Writ Petition bearing No. 4835
of 2011 filed by the respondents will stand dismissed. In the
facts of the case however, there will be no order as to costs.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search