AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Thomas, Member J
All the applicants are Ayurveda Doctors holding Masters Degree in Ayurveda. The first respondent is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Ayush, Government of India. By Annexure A1 notification No. 4/2015, applications were invited by the 1st respondent from eligible candidates for filling up 101 vacancies of Research Officers (Ayurveda). The selection process was by way of online examination, followed by an interview. The applicants being eligible applied and attended the examination held on 7.5.2016. The result was published on 17.6.2016. Annexure A2 list of short listed candidates was uploaded on the website. It did not include the applicants. According to the applicants the cut off marks as published by the respondents in Annexure A4 was 35% for unreserved category. According to the applicants, all of them had obtained more than 35% of marks and were eligible for being called for the interview. However, they were not short listed for interview. On inquiry it was revealed that a different criterion was adopted by the respondents for selecting the candidates for being interviewed. Claiming that the change of short listing pattern adopted by the respondents after Annexure A1 notification was issued, was bad and liable to be interfered with, they have approached this Tribunal. The prayers sought in the OA are to set aside Annexure A2 interview list and to direct the respondents to prepare a new short list of candidates, who had secured marks above the cut off marks as provided under Annexure A4, and including the applicants.
A detailed reply statement was filed by the respondents wherein it was stated that to maintain transparency in the examination process the respondents had approached an outside recruiting agency functioning under the Government of India i.e. EdCIL (India) Limited, which conducted the online computer based test for the posts of Research Officers. Results were published in the website on 1.7.2016 (Annexure R1). Several objections were received in accordance with clause 11 of the E-Admit card regarding the answers and key in Ayurveda discipline. Those objections were forwarded to the examination agency for obtaining their opinion. Accordingly, they in consultation with the experts gave an opinion to revise the merit list. Accordingly, Annexure R2, revised merit list of candidates who qualified for the interview was published.
It was stated that in the revised examination result, on application of 1:3 ratio in the case of unreserved category, the cut off marks, turned out to be 33.25 marks equivalent to 47.50%. Accordingly, all the candidates who had obtained the said marks and above were called for the interview.
At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants on instructions, submitted that applicants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 9 were called for the interview, pursuant to the revised list. This is reiterated in the reply statement also. Accordingly, he confined his claim to that of applicants Nos. 4, 6, 7 & 8 only.
In the light of averments contained in the reply statement, the short question that arises for consideration is as to whether fixation of a revised minimum cut off at 47.50% than the one prescribed in Annexure A4 is legally justifiable and permissible.
It was contended by the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents that the contention of the applicants that the selection process was altered subsequent to the notification, to the detriment of the applicants was not sustainable at all. Annexure A4 only prescribed the minimum percentage of marks required for being called for the interview. Prescribing a minimum qualifying mark does not mean that all those persons who had obtained marks above that minimum cut off marks are liable to be called for interview. It was also pointed out that considering the large number of candidates who obtained the minimum cut off mark, the candidates to be called for the interview had to be fixed in the ratio of 1:3, whereupon the eligible marks for the unreserved category turned out to be 47.50%. Hence, only those candidates who had secured 47.50% and above were called for interview. Such a course is fair, reasonable and will not vitiate the selection process, it was contended.
To substantiate the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that fixation of higher criterion than the minimum eligibility criteria for viva-voce when more number of candidates are available or when such candidates are disproportionately higher in comparison to number of posts to be filled up, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar & Anr. [(1994) 6 SCC 293] and B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi v. Union of India & Ors. [(2008) 1 SCC 362]. In the former decision it was held that even if a minimum eligibility criteria was fixed by statute, the selection board can fix a higher criteria for calling candidates for viva-voce, where the number of applicants were disproportionately higher in comparison to number of posts to be filled up. The same principle was followed in B. Ramakichenin’s case (supra). It was held therein that even if there is no rule providing for short-listing nor any mention of it in the advertisement calling for applications for the post, the selection body can resort to a short-listing procedure, if there are a large number of eligible candidates who had applied and it is not possible for the authority to interview all of them.
In the case at hand exactly the same situation arose. Though by Annexure A4 memorandum cut off of 35% was fixed, it did not mean that all the candidates who had secured more than 35% were liable to be called for the interview. In a situation wherein the numbers of candidates were disproportionately higher than the number of vacancies, by virtue of both the above decisions, the respondents had correctly fixed an upper limit above the minimum criteria. Viewed from this angle, we find no reason to interfere in the selection process. Necessarily the Original Application has to fail.
In the result the Original Application fails and it is dismissed. No costs.