Holding

The Supreme Court held that the selection committee’s criteria and the marks awarded were rational and free of mala fides, and the High Court erred in setting aside the appointment; therefore the appeal is allowed.

Summary

The dispute arose over the appointment of a Junior Lab Technician at Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, where the appellant was selected based on a merit list that allocated 85% weightage to the qualifying exam, 10% to work experience and 5% to an interview. The third respondent, who had scored higher in the qualifying exam, challenged the appointment alleging that the selection committee arbitrarily introduced experience and interview criteria after the advertisement and that the marks were biased. The High Court set aside the appellant's appointment, directing that the third respondent be appointed instead. The Supreme Court held that the selection committee’s criteria were rational, the marks awarded to the appellant were in line with the committee’s yardstick, and no mala fides could be imputed. It further observed that the third respondent did not challenge the entire selection list, and the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by examining the whole list. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the appellant’s appointment, emphasizing that courts do not sit in appeal over expert selection committees absent proof of bias.

Issues considered

The legality of the selection committee's allocation of marks for experience and interview in the merit list.
Whether the High Court could scrutinise the entire selection list when the writ petition only challenged the appellant's selection.
Whether the addition of experience and interview criteria after the advertisement amounted to changing the rules of the game.
Whether the appointment decision is subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the third respondent should have approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal instead of the High Court.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226

Subjects

appointmentselection committeemerit listexperience marksinterview marksArticle 226judicial reviewservice lawarbitrarinessmala fidesgovernment institution preference

Judgment

1144 [2021]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 6 S.C.R. 1144 [2021] 6 S.C.R.

A SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA
v.
KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6217 of 2021)
B OCTOBER 08, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment – Appellant appointed as Junior
Lab Technician in the first respondent-Institute – Challenged by
C
third respondent – Writ petition dismissed by Single Judge – Appeal
allowed by Division Bench – Held: Marks awarded to the third
respondent and the appellant bore a nexus to the yardstick determined
by the Selection Committee – No mala fides could be imputed to the
Selection Committee – Selection list not challenged by respondent –
D His only ground for challenge was that he had to be selected since
he was more meritorious as he had better qualifying marks – Thus,
determining the legality of the selection list and perusing the entire
selection list to determine whether the appellant’s selection was
arbitrary was erroneous – Division Bench transgressed the limits
of challenge in the writ petition – Constitution of India – Article
E
226.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The third respondent did not challenge the
entire selection list dated 20 April 2009. He challenged the
F appellant’s selection and sought a direction for his appointment
in place of the appellant. The third respondent did not challenge
the entire selection since he and the appellant had applied under
the same category, namely Category 1 – OBC. The basis of the
claim of the third respondent to the post was that since he had
secured higher marks as compared to the appellant in the
G qualifying examination in the Lab Technician’s course, he ought
to have been selected for the post. It was in the writ appeal that
the third respondent challenged the selection criteria of allotting
marks for experience and the interview. [Para 13][1153-D-E;
1154-A]
H
1144
SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA v. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 1145
SCIENCES & ORS.

1.2 Before proceeding to refer to the marks allotted to the A
third respondent and the appellant by the Selection Committee
for experience and at the interview, it is necessary to refer to the
criteria for allocation of marks devised by the Selection
Committee. The Minutes of the Meeting of the Selection
Committee state that the committee resolved to give
B
proportionate weightage to the length of the service, with special
preference to those candidates who have worked in government
medical colleges. For the selection to the post of a ‘Junior Lab
Technician’, the marks obtained in the qualifying examination
were assigned a weightage of eighty-five percent. Ten marks were
allotted to experience. Five marks were allotted for the personality C
of the candidate, as adjudged in the interview. The Selection
Committee laid down two yardsticks for provision of marks for
experience: (a) length of work experience of the candidate; and
(b) preference would be given to those who had worked in teaching
hospitals of government / autonomous medical colleges. The
D
rationale of the Selection Committee on differentiating between
work experience in a private and government institute was that
those who had worked in a government institute would be more
suitable for the post due to the similarity of working conditions
owing to the fact that the first respondent is a government medical
institution. It is in this background that this Court needs to E
determine whether the marks allotted to the appellant in the
category of experience and personality are arbitrary. The appellant
at the time of submitting the application had a one year work
experience in Babuji Medical College, Devanagere (a private
institution) and three years of work experience with the first
F
respondent. On the other hand, the respondent at the time of the
application, had six months’ experience of working under a doctor
who was undertaking private practice. Not only did the appellant
have more years of work experience, he had work experience in
a governmental institution. Hence, the marks awarded to the third
respondent and the appellant bore a nexus to the yardstick G
determined by the Selection Committee. On a comparison of the
marks allotted to both the candidates with reference to the
yardstick determined by the Selection Committee, no mala fides
could be imputed to the Selection Committee. Nor is there an
H
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 6 S.C.R.

A obvious or glaring error or perversity. The Court does not sit in
appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee. [Paras 15,
16][1155-B-H; 1156-A]
1.3 The respondent had not challenged the selection list or
the inclusion of the experience and the interview component for
B the determination of the merit list in the Writ Petition but had
only sought his appointment within the criteria prescribed. The
Division Bench of the High Court set aside the appointment of
the appellant on two grounds. First, the marks provided for
candidates at the interview and for experience category were
held to be arbitrary. To arrive at this conclusion, the Division
C Bench referred to the entire select list and found alleged
discrepancies in the allotment of the marks for experience and a
pattern where all the selected candidates were given higher
marks for experience and at the interview. Second, the Division
Bench held that the advertisement issued by the first respondent
D did not mention the criterion of work experience but only
provided the minimum educational qualifications. Thus, it held
that the rules of the game were changed after the process had
started. The appointment of the appellant was set aside by the
Division Bench by finding that the additional selection criteria
devised and the marks provided in those criteria were arbitrary.
E As observed earlier, the selection list was not challenged by the
respondent. His only ground for challenge was that he had to be
selected since he was ‘more meritorious’ as he had better
qualifying marks. Therefore, determining the legality of the
selection list and perusing the entire selection list to determine
F whether the selection of the appellant was arbitrary was erroneous
as the Division Bench transgressed the limits of challenge in the
writ petition. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court
of Karnataka is set aside. [Paras 19-21]
Nagraj v. Karnataka Institute of Medical Science
G Decision of Karnataka High Court in WP Nos. 62758-
62760/2009 – referred to.
K Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC
512 : [2008] 2 SCR 1025;

H
SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA v. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 1147
SCIENCES & ORS.

Bishnu Biswas v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 774 : A
[2014] 4 SCR 625 – held inapplicable.
Case Law Reference
[2008] 2 SCR 1025 held inapplicable Para 17
[2014] 4 SCR 625 held inapplicable Para 17 B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6217 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2017 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench in Writ Appeal No.100580 of 2015 (S-
RES). C
S. N. Bhat, D. P. Chaturvedi, Advs. for the Appellant.
Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Parikshit Angadi, Rajesh Inamdar,
Anirudh Sanganeria, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. By a judgment dated 31 March 20171, a Division Bench of the
High Court of Karnataka, at Dharwad allowed an appeal filed against
the judgment of the Single Judge2. The Division Benchquashed the
selection of the appellant to the post of ‘Junior Lab Technician’ in the E
first respondent and directed it to consider the case of the third respondent
for appointment to thepost. The appellant moved this Court in Special
Leave Petition to challenge the decision of the Division Bench. Leave
was granted on1 October 2021.
2. On 2 September 2008, the first respondent issued a notification F
inviting applications for thirty-five vacancies in the post of ‘Junior Lab
Technician’. The notification bifurcated the available vacancies on the
basis of category and stipulated the minimum qualifications required for
selection. The relevant portion of the notification reads as follows:
1. Junior Lab Technicians:- General Merit 33 years, SC/ST/ G
Cat. I, 38 years and for other category 36 years. Pass in PUC
with Chemistry and Laboratory Technician Training Course or
pass in SSLC and 2 years Vocational Diploma Course in Laboratory
1
WA No. 10580/2015
2
WP No. 63973/2009 H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 6 S.C.R.

A Technician or Pass PUC with Science and 2 years Laboratory
Technician Course conducted by Para Medical Board, Karnataka
or Pass in SSLC and 3 years Diploma in Medical Laboratory
Technology in conducted by Para Medical Board, Karnataka.
3. Both the appellant and third respondent applied for the post in
B category 1(OBC) in which one vacancy was advertised.The Selection
Committee consisted of the Additional Secretary, Department of Health
and Family Welfare (Medical Education), Director of Medical Education,
a representative of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and
the Director, Principal and CAO of the first respondent. On 22 August
2008, the Selection Committee assembled to discuss the modalities of
C
selection. It was decided that the percentage of marks obtained in the
qualifying exam in the Laboratory Technician’s Course would be
converted to 85%. Of the 15% marks set out for the interview, 10% of
the marks were to be set apart for the length of work experience and/or
additional training in teaching hospitals of a medical college, with special
D preference to those who had worked in teaching hospitals of government/
autonomous medical colleges. The remaining 5% marks were to be
assigned to the personality of the candidate based on the viva-voce. The
relevant extract of the Minutes of the Meeting is extracted below:
“The Selection Committee consisting of the Additional Secretary,
E Health & Family Welfare Department (Medical Education),
Director of Medical Education, representative of the Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences, Director, Principal and CAO of
KIMS, Hubli held a meeting on 22.12.2008 at 11.30 a.m. to discuss
the modalities of selection (Advertisement is dated 02.09.2008,
prior to this). It was decided that in order to select the most
F
suitable candidates, proportionate weightage based on the
length of experience and/or additional training to the extent
of 10 marks be given to those candidates who had work
experience and/or additional training in Medical college
teaching hospitals and especially those who had worked in
G Government/ Autonomous Medical College Teaching
Hospitals. It was agreed that the type of work in these
institutions most closely resembled the working conditions
at ‘ Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli and
hence the candidates who had experience in such
institutions would be the most suitable. It was also decided
H
SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA v. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 1149
SCIENCES & ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

to set apart a maximum of 5 marks for the personality of the A
candidate and his/her presentation and performance. The
marks obtained in the interview (maximum 15) would be added to
the average percentage obtained in the qualifying examination
reduced to 85%. The total marks thus obtained by the candidates
would be tabulated in the order of merit and final list would be
B
prepared based on the roster system.”
(emphasis supplied)
The appellant scored an aggregate of 66.77%, while the third
respondent scored 76.3% in the qualifying examination in the para medical
course. The interview for the selection of candidates for the post was C
held on 22, 23 and 24 December 2008.
4. The appellant was given 9.5 marks in the experience category
and 4.5 marks in the personality/presentation category. On the other
hand, the third respondentreceived one mark each in the components of
experience and personality/presentation. On the cumulation of the marks D
received in the three categories namely, qualifying marks, experience
and interview, the appellant secured 70.86 marks while the third respondent
secured 66.84 marks. Since the appellant cumulatively received the
highest marks in category 1, he was appointed to the post of Junior Lab
Technician in category 1 on 21 April 2009.
E
5. The third respondentinstituted a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution before the High Court of Karnataka to challenge the
appointment of the appellant. He sought a direction for quashing the
appointment of the appellant and his appointment in place of the appellant
to the post.It was contended that the selection of the appellant to the
post, inspite of having scored lower marks in the qualifying examination F
as compared to him was arbitrary. The petition was resisted by the
appellant on the following grounds:
(i) The third respondent ought to have approached the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal to redress his grievances;
G
(ii) The Selection Committee is an expert body which was
entitled to bifurcate and assign 85% for the marks in the
qualifying examination in the para medical course, 10% for
experience in a recognized health institution and 5% for
vivo-voce; and
H
1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 6 S.C.R.

A (iii) The appellant passed his para medical course in 2002-2003
and had three years’ experience in the hospital of the first
respondentand one year’s experience in Bapuji Medical
College, Davangere. On the other hand, the third respondent
passed his para medical course in 2007 and hadexperience
only of six months working under a private medical
B
practitioner.
6. By a judgment dated 7 August 2015, the Single Judge dismissed
the writ petition for the reason that (i) the advertisement stipulated that
a candidate who had passed PUC must possess two years’ experience;
and (ii) since the third respondent did not have the requisite experience
C as prescribed, the Selection Committee was justified in awarding only
one mark under the head of experience.
7. The third respondent assailed the correctness of the judgement
of the Single Judgein an intra court appeal and urged the following
submissions : (i) the selection process was skewed to favour ‘insider’
D candidates, namely candidates who were working for or had worked in
the first respondent; (ii) the advertisement calling for applications did not
specify the requirement of experience for the post of Junior Lab
Technician, though it was prescribed for other posts; and (iii) For the
above two reasons, providing marks based on experience is arbitrary.
E On the other hand, the appellant urged that (i) the Selection Committee
consisted of responsible persons who had resolved to grant ten marks
for experience (with preference to those who had earlier worked in
government institutions) and 5 marks for the interview; and (iii) the Court
must not sit in appeal and interfere with the decision of the Selection
Committee.
F 8. The Division Bench allowed the appeal and quashed the
selection of the appellant and directed the first respondent to consider
the case of the third respondent for appointment to the post of Junior
Lab Technician within two months. The Division Bench held that:
(i) The Court cannot sit in appeal over the work of the Selection
G Committee, unless allegations of bias are established;
(ii) Bye-law No. 10 states that relaxation of age and other
conditions can be made during the process of selection at
the discretion of the appointing authority in order to utilize
the best talent and experience. However, the advertisement
H did not make any reference to the applicability of the Bye-
SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA v. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 1151
SCIENCES & ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

law 10 but only indicated that the selected candidate will be A
governed by the bye-laws of the first respondent;
(iii) The bye-law is vague and has not prescribed any guidelines
for the exercise of discretion by the Selection Committee;
(iv) The Selection Committee evolved the criteria after the
advertisement was issued and when the selection process B
had begun;
(v) Most of the selected candidates were given high marks of
9 or 9.5 in the experience category and 4.5 marks in the
personal interview category.The marks were given
arbitrarily under the head of experience : one candidate C
who only had four months’ experience was given two marks
for experience, while other candidates who had experience
exceeding four months, were given one mark for
experience;
(vi) No explanation has been furnished for dividing the marks D
in the ratio of 85:10:5.The absence of any criteria for the
allotment of discretionary marks leads to an inference of
bias and mala fides; and
(vii) The bifurcation of marks for experience and personality
after the publication of the advertisement amounted to
E
changing the rules of game after the process had begun.
9. The appellant moved this Court in a Special Leave Petition.
This Court issued notice by an order dated 20 July 2012 and stayed the
operation of the judgment of the Division Bench. The appellant who
was appointed in 2009 has continued in the post for eleven years.
F
10. Mr SN Bhat, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
sought to challenge the judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court has urged the following grounds :
(i) The marks allotted to the appellant under theheads of
experience and interview are not arbitrary. The appellant
G
had an experience of one year in a private institute and an
experience of three years and one month in a government
medical institution as on the date of the application. On the
other hand, the third respondent had an experience of only
six months working under a doctor in private practice at
the relevant time; H
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 6 S.C.R.

A (ii) Though the advertisement did not prescribe experience as
a minimum qualification, there is a difference between
prescribing a minimum qualification and providing guidelines
for identification of suitability of a candidate from the selected
pool. The Selection Committee has the power to evolve
criteria for determining the suitability of candidates among
B
those who fulfil the minimum criteria mentioned in the
advertisement;
(iii) The Selection Committee resolved to segregate the work
experience into government and private sectors and decided
to give more weightage to those who have work experience
C in the government sector. The committee was of the opinion
that candidates who have worked in a governmental
institution would be more suitable for the post in the first
respondent since they would be familiar of the modalities
of work. Thus, the marks allotted by the Selection Committee
D were guided by a sound rationale;
(iv) The third respondent has not challenged the entire selection
list but only the selection of the appellant. Thus, the Court
could not have referred to the alleged irregularities in the
marks provided to candidatesin other categories to impute
E mala fides; and
(v) The selection list was challenged before the Karnataka High
Court in Nagaraj v. Karnataka Institute of Medical
Sciences3. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single
Judge and there was no appeal against the order. Since the
order of the Single Judge has attained finality, the respondent
F cannot now raise arguments on the alleged arbitrariness of
the selection list.
11. Mr Devadatt Kamal, counsel appearing on behalf of the third
respondent has urged the following submissions:
(i) The advertisement calling for applications to the post of a
G
‘Junior Lab Technician’ does not prescribe an experience
criterion;
(ii) The Selection Committee has uniformly given all the selected
candidates, 9.5 marks for experience and 4.5 marks for the
3
H WP Nos. 62758-62760/2009
SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA v. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 1153
SCIENCES & ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

interview. Candidates who have not been selected were A
uniformly given one mark each for experience and at the
interview;
(iii) The rules of the game have been changed after the selection
process had set in; and
B
(iv) The merit listshows that the Selection Committeearbitrarily
awarded marks for experience. For instance, a candidate
having four months’ experience in a private institution was
given two marks while a person having more than a year of
experience in a private institute was only given one mark.
C
12. The rival submissions fall for consideration.
13. A preliminary observation needs to be made at this stage of
the analysis. The third respondent did not challenge the entire selection
list dated 20 April 2009. He challenged the appellant’s selection and
sought a direction for his appointment in place of the appellant. The third D
respondent did not challenge the entire selection since he and the appellant
had applied under the same category, namely Category 1 – OBC. The
basis of the claim of the third respondent to the post was that since he
had secured higher marks as compared to the appellant in the qualifying
examination in the Lab Technician’s course, he ought to have been
selected for the post. The Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition E
noted the submission of the third respondentthus:
“2. […] It is the petitioner’s grievance that his name appeared
at Serial No.213, wherein the percentage of marks obtained by
the petitioner is shown at 76.28%, whereas the name of respondent
no.3, who had actually been selected for the post of Junior F
Laboratory Technician, had appeared at Serial No.170 and the
percentage of marks of respondent no.3 was shown as 66.77%.
In spite of this, it is the petitioner’s grievance that respondent no.3
had been appointed apparently on the basis of the marks obtained
at the interview and it is the petitioner’s suspicion that the marks G
were granted in favour of respondent no.3 at the interview
notwithstanding; that he was less meritorious than the petitioner
and it is on this ground that the present petition is filed seeking to
question the appointment of respondent no.3 and rejection of his
application.”
H
1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 6 S.C.R.

A It was in the writ appeal that the third respondent challenged the
selection criteria of allotting marks for experience and the interview. It
was argued before the Division Bench that the advertisement had only
mentioned the requirement of a minimum educational qualification and
that since it did not stipulate a requirement of experience, the selection
based on marks provided for experience was arbitrary since the rules of
B
the game were changed after the selection process had commenced.
14. The selection list for the post of ‘Junior Lab Technician’ was
challenged before the High Court in another proceeding - Nagaraj (supra)
- but the writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge. In Nagaraj,
the casual labourers working in the first respondentchallenged the
C selection list for the post of ‘Junior Lab Technician’ on the ground that
they ought to have been regularised and appointed to the post. It was
also contended that the selection process adopted by the first respondent
was not transparent. The Single Judge rejected the submission and held
that the Selection Committee had selected candidates to the post in
D accordance with the Bye laws and the guidelines devised by the Selection
Committee. The High Court held :
“8. After careful perusal of the stand taken by the respondents
specifically with reference to Annexure R1, authorities have
followed the procedure and mode of selection as per terms
E and conditions notified in By-laws of the first
respondent.Selection Committee consists of experts in the
relevant field having rich knowledge are well acquainted with the
procedures for selection category wise. Taking into
consideration the marks secured by the candidate in the
examination, performance, experience certificate,
F certificate issued by the concerned authorised officer
regarding their experience, practical knowledge of work
in the lab, all the candidates herein are selected on merit
basis having regard to their better marks, better
experience. […] Taking into consideration all these relevant
G aspects and due to efflux of time, the prayer sought by the
petitioners, may not survive for consideration and interference by
this Court is not called for, nor I find any good ground to interfere
in these writ petitions. Hence, all these petitions are dismissed as
being devoid of merits.”

H (emphasis supplied)
SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA v. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 1155
SCIENCES & ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Since the order of the Single Judge in Nagaraj has not been A
appealed, it has attained finality and thus the marks allotted to candidates
in other categories cannot be scrutinised to cast doubt on the selection in
Category 1.
15. Before proceeding to refer to the marks allotted to the third
respondent and the appellant by the Selection Committeefor experience B
and at the interview, we find it necessary to refer to the criteria for
allocation of marks devised by the Selection Committee. The Minutes of
the Meeting of the Selection Committeeheld on 20 August 2008 state
that the committee resolved to give proportionate weightage to the length
of the service,with special preference to those candidates who have
worked in government medical colleges. For the selection to the post of C
a ‘Junior Lab Technician’, the marks obtained in the qualifying examination
were assigned a weightage of eighty-five percent. Ten marks were allotted
to experience. Five marks were allotted for the personality of the
candidate, as adjudged in the interview. The Selection Committee laid
down two yardsticks for provision of marks for experience: (a) length of D
work experience of the candidate; and (b) preference would be given to
those who had worked in teaching hospitals of government/ autonomous
medical colleges.The rationale of the Selection Committee on
differentiating between work experience in a private and government
institute was that those who had worked in a government institute would
bemore suitable for the post due to the similarity of working conditions E
owing to the fact thatthe first respondent is a government medical
institution.
16. It is in this background that we need to determine whether the
marks allotted to the appellant in the category of experience and
personality are arbitrary. The appellant at the time of submitting the F
application had a one year work experience in Babuji Medical College,
Devanagere (a private institution) and three years of work experience
with the first respondent. On the other hand, the respondent at the time
of the application, had six months’ experience of working under a doctor
who was undertaking private practice. Not only did the appellant have
G
more years of work experience, he had work experience in a governmental
institution. Hence, the marks awarded to the third respondent and the
appellant bore a nexus to the yardstick determined by the Selection
Committee. It is not the case of the third respondent that the appellant
was given more marks for experience despite having less work
experience. On a comparison of the marks allotted to both the candidates H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 6 S.C.R.

A with reference to the yardstick determined by the Selection Committee,
no mala fides could be imputed to the Selection Committee. Nor is there
an obvious or glaring error or perversity. The Court does not sit in appeal
over the decision of the Selection Committee.
17. During the course of his submissions, counsel for the third
B respondent referred to the judgments of this Court in K Manjusree v.
State of Andhra Pradesh4 and Bishnu Biswas v. Union of India5. In
K Manjusree, in issue was the selection of candidates to ten posts of
District and Sessions Judge (Grade II) in the Andhra Pradesh State
Higher Judicial Service. The first merit list was prepared by cumulating
the marks obtained in the written examinationout of hundred and the
C interview marks out of twenty five. However, when the merit list was
placed before the committee, the list was sent back for reconsideration
on the ground that the marks for the written test were to be converted to
eighty five. Further, the committee also introduced a minimum mark
qualification for the interview. Therefore, the ratio of written (examination)
D and oral (interview) marks was changed from 4:1 to 3:1 and an additional
requirement of minimum marks for the interview was introduced. This
was challenged by candidates who were in the first merit list but were
left out in the second merit list. The change in the ratio of marks from
4:1 to 3:1 was upheld by this Court on the ground that the resolution of
the committee was misinterpreted while publishing the first merit list
E based on the 4:1 ratio. However, the Court held that the prescription of
minimum marks for interview was illegal since such an additional
requirement was prescribed after the commencement of the selection
process. In this regard, Justice Raveendran writing for a three judge
Bench observed:
F “ 33. […] We have no doubt that the authority making rules
regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks
both for the written examination and interviews, or prescribe
minimum marks for written exam but not for the interview[…].
But if the Selection Committee wants to prescribe minimum marks,
it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If
G the Selection Committee prescribed minimum marks only for the
written examination, before the commencement of selection
process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the
selection process, add an additional requirement.[…].”
4
(2008) 3 SCC 512
H 5
(2014) 5 SCC 774
SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA v. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 1157
SCIENCES & ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

18. In Bishnu Biswas (supra), the rules had provided that A
candidates for eight Group D posts would be selected based on the
written exam of fifty marks. However, after the written exam was held,
a press notice was issued calling successful candidates for an interview
for which fifty marks were allotted. Referring to various judgments of
this Court including Manjusree (supra), the selection list was quashed
on the ground that the rules of the game (by including the interview B
component) had changed after the selection process was initiated.
19. As we have noted earlier, the respondent had not challenged
the selection list or the inclusion of the experience and the interview
component for the determination of the merit list in the Writ Petition but
had only sought his appointment within the criteria prescribed. Hence, C
the reliance placed by the respondent on Bishnu Biswas and Manjusree
would not aid the case of the third respondent.
20. The Division Bench of the High Courtset aside the appointment
of the appellant on two grounds. First, the marks provided for candidates
at the interview and for experience category were held to be arbitrary.
To arrive at this conclusion, the Division Bench referred to the entire D
select list and found alleged discrepancies in the allotment of the marks
for experience and a pattern where all the selected candidates were
given higher marks for experience and at the interview. Second, the
Division Bench held that the advertisement issued by the first respondent
did not mention the criterion of work experience butonly provided the
minimum educational qualifications. Thus, it held that the rules of the E
game werechanged after the process had started.The appointment of
the appellant was set aside by the Division Bench by finding that the
additional selection criteria devised and the marks provided in those criteria
were arbitrary. As observed earlier, the selection list was not challenged
by the respondent. His only ground for challenge was that he had to be
F
selected since he was ‘more meritorious’ as he had better qualifying
marks. Therefore, determining the legality of the selection list and perusing
the entire selection list to determine whether the selection of the appellant
was arbitrary was erroneous as the Division Bench transgressed the
limits of challenge in the writ petition.
21. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the G
impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 31
March 2017.
22. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.
H