AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioners in all the three writ petitions are applicants for admission to the co-operative training institute at Nagercoil. They have prayed for the
issue of a writ of mandamus for a direction to select them to the diploma course conducted by the respondents for the year 1999-2000.
There are 11 institutes of Co-operative Management and a total strength of candidates that could be admitted for the year 1999-2000 is 9,825.
Insofar as the Nagercoil Co-operative Institute of Management is concerned, the strength of the seats, originally fixed at 400, has been increased
to 600. As per the proceedings of the Registrar of Co-operative societies dated 23.6.99, a selection committee has been constituted and
procedure for selection has been ordered. The selection committee comprised of the following:
(1) President of the Institute of Co-operative Management- Chairman.
(2) Representative of T.N.C.U.- Member.
(3) Regional Joint Registrar or his representative having administrative control over the institute-Member.
(4) Other Regional Joint Registrar or representative in the area of operation of the institute-Member.
(5) Managing Director/ Principal of the Institute Member Convenor.
As per clause 8 of the proceedings, the candidates shall be selected by in interview by the selection Committee and the guidelines have been
prescribed. As per Para 7 of the guidelines, the assessment of the applicants called for interview for the purpose of selection shall be on the
following basis:
In respect of Higher Secondary Candidates-
(a) Higher Secondary Mark shall be reduced 100 Marks
(b) Interview marks 50 Marks
Total 150 Marks
The interview mark of 50 shall be awarded by the Members of the Committee to the Candidates as detailed below:
(a) General Knowledge 15 Marks
(b) Personality 15 Marks
(c) Attitude, expression and behaviour 15 Marks
(d) Interest in extra curricular activities 5 Marks
Total 50 Marks
According to the counsel for the petitioners there is a serious illegality in the selection process. According to them, there is no interview at all as
contemplated under the guidelines. Secondly, the weightage given to the interview is one-third of the total valuation which is clearly contrary to the
directions of the Supreme Court. Petitioners have pleaded specifically that no interview was conducted and the selection was not on the basis of
the performance in the interview and the Higher Secondary Marks. Petitioner in W.P.No.15840 of 1999 alleged that a reasonable percentage of
candidates selected did not even possess the required qualification and they were selected only on account of the pressure from political persons
and not on merits. Petitioners in W.P. No.15995 of 1999 have averred that not even the certificates and marks obtained by the candidates were
verified and it is humanly impossible for the committee to interview 1400 candidates from 10 am to 5 pm in one day. According to them, the
interview was an eye-wash and the respondents had already selected their own candidates on extraneous considerations.
Four counter affidavits have been filed in these writ petitions. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies has filed a counter wherein it is
stated that 20% of the seats were reserved for graduates. But he has not stated as to how academic marks assessed insofar as the graduates are
concerned. He has stated that the interview marks namely 50 marks shall be awarded by the members of the committee in the following manner:
General Knowledge 15 Marks
Personality I5 Marks
Attitude, expression and behaviour I5 Marks
Interest in extra curricular 5 Marks
Total 50 Marks
The said procedure has been followed for the past many years without alteration. He has also stated that has per the power vested with him u/s
181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, the strength of the trainees for each institute and the committee for selection of the
candidates have been decided. In the other counters, the respondents have admitted that there has been an inordinate speed in the conducting of
interview and they have to press in the service of available human resources due to lack of previous experience to the newly constituted selection
board. It is stated that the strength has been increased from 400 to 500 and now 600. It is not stated as to under what order the strength has been
increased from 400 to 600. It is admitted that 1420 applicants were called for interview on 19.7.99 and 1292 candidates were interviewed from
10 am to 8 pm. Verification of certificates was done by the staff. A committee assessed the intellectual ability of each candidate and it was done
strictly in accordance with the guidelines. They have denied any political influence in the selection. They have also given the category wise allocation
of seats of 600.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.
Even though petitioners have sought for a mandamus for a direction to admit them to the course, after hearing the counsel and going through the
records placed before me, I was able to notice serious infirmities which go to the very root of the selection itself.
On the admitted averments and the facts, the whole selection is liable to be set aside for the following reasons:
(1) It is admitted that 1420 candidates appeared for the interview held on 19.7.99 and the committee conducted the interview from 10am to 8pm.
The Committee assessed the intellectual ability of every candidate. Assuming that there was no break and that interview was conducted from 10
am to 8 pm, a candidate would have hardly got 25.3 seconds. Within this time, a candidate has to be questioned by four members of the
committee on general knowledge, personality, attitude, expression and behaviour and interest in extra curricular activities. Therefore, as rightly
pointed out by the counsel, the interview was a farce and a mere eye-wash. Practically, there was no interview conducted as required. Besides,
from the register, it is seen that the members have not given 50 marks as stated by the Joint Registrar namely 15 Marks each for general
knowledge, personality, attitude, expression and behaviour and 5 marks for interest in extra curricular activities. What is seen from the register is
that each one of them have awarded marks for 50 and then it is averaged for 50. The respondents have not stated anything as to the number of
candidates who appeared for the interview on 20.7.9C. But, however, it could be inferred from the total number of applications considered that
510 candidates should have been interviewed on 20.7.99. No details of the timings were given, whereas the petitioners have stated that the
interview was taken between 10 am to 5 pm, which means 7 hours and assuming that there was no break for the committee, each candidate would
have been given 49 seconds for assessing their in tellectual ability by four members of the committee on the various factors. Thus, it is clear that
there was no possibility of selection on the basis of a real assessment of the interview.
In the counter filed by the Deputy Registrar/Principal dated 7.12.99, it is admitted that they have fixed a cut-off mark of 94. According to him,
the selection committee fixed a cut-off mark at 94. It is not explained as to how the cut-off mark can be fixed even before the selection is
completed. It is impossible to fix a cut-off mark when the selection is to be made on the basis of academic mark as well as the interview. The cut-
off mark can be obtained if the selection is based only on academic marks and on the basis of merit and ranking. Here, since it is based also on the
basis of interview mark, there is no possibility of cut- off mark. Thus, it could be seen that the authorities have fixed 94 Marks and those who have
not got 94 marks have not been selected. There is a basic fallacy in this process of selection.
I have gone through the records placed before me namely the tabulated marks of the candidates interviewed. Even from the counter affidavit of
the Deputy Registrar dated 6.12.99 in W.P. No.15995 of 1999, it could be seen that petitioner Shanthi Jeba Shuba, who gets 916 Marks in the
Higher Secondary with an average of 75%, gets only 16 Marks in the interview. Thus, she gets a total of 92 Marks, whereas, T. Chitra Shuba,
who has got 698 Marks with an average of 58%, has got 49 out of the 50 Marks in the interview totalling 97. The glaring instances can be pointed
out illustrative as shown below:
SI. Name of the Hr. Sec. Percentage Interview-Marks to be Average Marks Total
No. Candidate Marks awarded by 4 Members each in interview Marks
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Interview held on 19.7.1999 (Total mistake)
1479 M.Saraswathi 615 51.25 41 49 42 40 43 99''
1467 S.Devi 668 55.66 39 46 43 44 43 99*
1464 G.Saraswathi 672 56 44 44 43 46 43 99*
1457 S.R.Nagcswari 708 69 40 45 35 40 40 99*
1450 P.L.Dhanalaxmi 734 61.16 34 40 38 40 38 99*
397 M.R.Sujitha 999 83.25 10 9 11 10 10 93***
398 S.Sudha 999 83.25 8 7 12 13 10 93***
399 A.Barathi 995 82.91 10 9 10 11 10 92...
Interview held on 20.7.1999
2124 A. Prasad 631 52.50 36 46 39 43 41 94*
(a) Kumar
2122 J.Sivadanu 665 55.41 45 41 44 42 44 99*
2119 M.SenthM 797 66.41 33 29 31 35 32 98*
Kumar
1629 K.Venkates 995 82.91 10 10 10 10 10 93***
waran
1630 AJegan 991 82.58 8 9 10 9 9 92*
1631 S.Tlrupati Raja 986 82.16 9 11 8 8 9 91""*
* - Selected Candidates
*** - Unselected Candidates
Thus, by going through the register of marks awarded it is so abundantly clear that the candidates who have got higher marks in the Higher
Secondary are given the least marks in the interview and therefore, they are not selected. Whereas, candidates who get lesser marks in the High
Secondary are given more marks in the interview so that they could be selected. It is not explained as to how those persons who have got less
marks in the Higher Secondary are able to get high marks in the interview assuming that there was an interview conducted. Therefore, the whole
selection is a pre-determined exercise for selecting the candidates decided by the authorities even prior to the interview.
The Higher Secondary marks are awarded for 1200. That is reduced to 100 and the interview mark is 50. Thus, the interview gets a
weightage of one-third of the evaluation, which is clearly held to be arbitrary by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions. A Constitution Bench
of the Supreme Court in St. Stephen''s College etc., etc. Vs. The University of Delhi Etc., Etc., , held that marks exceeding 15% of the total marks
of the interview is arbitrary. Their Lordships have referred and approved a number of decisions in this regard. In paragraph 64, their Lordships
observed as follows:
The oral interview as a supplementary test and not as exclusive test for assessing the suitability of candidates for college admission has been
recognised by this Court. But at the same time, to avoid arbitrariness in the selection it has been repeatedly held that there shall not be allocation of
high percentage of marks for oral interview test. Where candidate''s personality is yet to develop, it has been emphasised that greater weight has
per force to be given to performance in the written examination and the importance to be attached to the interview test must be minimal. The Court
has generally indicated that interview marks should not be more than 15 per cent of the total marks. R. Chitralekha and Another Vs. State of
Mysore and Others, ; Minor A. Peeriakaruppan and Sobha Joseph Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, ; Miss. Nishi Maghu and Others Vs.
State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, ; Ajay Hasia and Others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others, ; Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan
and Others, and Koshal Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, .
In somewhat similar circumstances, a learned Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, held that the
interview of the candidates by the committee was a mere farce and as such the marks allocated to each one of the candidates was wholly arbitrary
and whimsical. The learned Judge took this view because the selection committee spent less than one minute to interview each candidate. In that
case, to be precise, it spent 45 seconds on an average on each candidate. The committee was to interview each candidate and his personality at
least on three aspects. However, the committee could do it in 45 seconds per candidate and then allocate the marks boggles imagination. The
learned Judge also held that the allocation of interview test more than 25% of the maximum marks is not sustainable. From the above decisions of
the Supreme Court, it is clear that the weightage given to the interview is arbitrary, illegal and illogical. That apart, there was no interview of the
assessment of the four factors for the candidates who were not even given a minute for their assessment.
It is admitted that in the counter that 20% of the seats are reserved for graduates and as per the annexure to the proceedings of the registrar,
preference is given to M. Com degree holders, then to the B.Com degree holders and thirdly to the Economics degree holders. The other degree
holders will be selected on the basis of marks obtained in the degree plus the interview marks. Whereas, the respondent proceed on the basis that
the decree holders also were selected on the basis of Higher Secondary marks and in the selection register also it is seen that percentage of mark
for the degrees were given for M. Com. and B. Com. Neither in the application nor in the notification calling for applications candidates were told
that there will be an interview for selection. Only after the receipt of the interview card the candidates came to know that there is going to be an
interview.
In the light of the admitted facts set out in the counter affidavit and from the records, it is clear that the weightage given to the interview namely
50 marks when compared to the 100 marks to the academic marks is arbitrary and illegal in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court.
Assuming that this procedure is valid, even for that purpose, there is absolutely no record to show that there was an interview conducted. The
interview conducted was a farce and candidates were not awarded marks for assessment. The register produced before me shows that the
interview committee has awarded independent marks and they were averaged and those who have got 94 marks and above were found selected.
The respondents proceeded to fix the cut-off mark as 94 and granted, to whom they want to select, marks to their liking in the interview so that it
may go above 94. Thus, the whole process is a deliberate, illegal exercise of power. The court, having been brought to notice of such a high-
handed arbitrary selection, cannot simply direct the petitioners alone to be admitted. It could be seen that 600 candidates were selected in such a
fashion, which means that the 600 candidates who are really meritorious are not selected. Such a vast arbitrary selection should not be allowed to
go unnoticed. The contention of the respondents that classes have commenced from 18.8.99 and therefore, the selection should not be set aside
cannot hold water. This Co-operative Training is not a course which cannot be extended by three or four months. No prejudice is going to be
caused if a fresh selection is ordered to be held in accordance with law. In the interest of justice and fairness to those innumerable poor candidates
who were denied admission on the basis of this illegal method of selection, the only course open to me is to quash the whole selection. In the light
of these serious allegations, the contention of the petitioners that the selection is made on extraneous considerations and that the selection is a pre-
determined affair and the subsequent interview is only an eye-wash has got much force. Petitioners have also furnished a newspaper report wherein
the Vice President of Nagercoil District Panchayat Meeting has admitted that admissions were given on receiving upto Rs. 15,000. The Deputy
Registrar has also conceded in that meeting that illegality has been committed.
14, The Supreme Court, in Gurdip Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1983 SC 2638, held that admission of candidates by illegal means
cannot be retained. The Supreme Court held that the candidates as well as the authorities who resort to illegal methods cannot be permitted to
plead this sympathy to retain their admission. This has emboldened the participants of this fraud to retain the ill-gotten admission in the hope that
even if the matter is taken up before the court, they will be saved. Their Lordships observed in this regard as follows:
Undue lenient view of the Courts on the basis of human considerations in regard to selection of candidate for admission to educational institution
by adopting illegal means on the apart of the authorities has served to create an impression that even were an advantage is secured by stratagem
and trickery, it could be rationalised in courts of law. Courts do and should take human an sympathetic view of matters. That is the very essence of
justice. But considerations of Judicial Policy also dictate that a tendency of this kind where advantage gained by illegal means is permitted to be
retained will jeopardise the purity of selection process itself: engender cynical disrespect towards the judicial process and in the last analyses
embolden errant authorities and candidates into a sense of complacency and impunity that gains achieved by such wrong could be retained by an
appeal to the sympathy of the court. Such instances reduce the jurisdiction and discretion of Courts into private benevolence"".
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Purushothaman v. Registrar and others, 1996 (I) KLJ 531, held that persons who get orders of
appointment by resorting to backdoor methods should be sent out through the backdoor itself. In Chhittar Vs. State of Rajasthan, , the Supreme
Court held that the entire selection will be liable to be set aside if the selection is conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit. Their Lordships
observed as follows:
As regards the selection made without interview, fake and ghost interviews, tampering with the final records, fabricating documents, forgery, an
inference that always motivated by extraneous considerations can be drawn. The entire selection thus is arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. The
plea that the innocent candidates should not be penalised for the misdeeds of others is not applicable to such cases"".
In A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. Government of A.P. 1986 (2) SCC 687, it was held that the court cannot issue directions to the
university to protect the interest of students who had been admitted erroneously, as that would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the Act
and the Regulations. The Court cannot, by its fiat, direct the university to disobey the statute. That would be destructive of the rule of law. In this
case, it is clear that by awarding 50% marks for the interview and not holding the interview a such and wrong imaginal figures in the interview, the
authorities have acted against the rule of law and fairness, and have violated and guidelines issued for the selection. In Punjab Engineering College
Chandigarh through its Principal Vs. Sanjay Gulati and Others, . In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court held that when students who are
wrongly admitted do not suffer the consequences of the manipulations, if any, made on their behalf by interested person. This has virtually come to
mean that one must get into the educational institution by means, fair or foul; once you are in, no one will put you out. Law''s delays work their
wonders in such diverse circumstances. It is found that this situation has emboldened the erring authorities or educational institutions of the various
state to indulge in violating the norms of admission with impunity. They seem to feel that the Courts will leave the admissions intact even if the
admissions are granted contrary to the rules and regulations. This is most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Laws are meant to be obeyed, not flouted.
Some day, not distant, if admissions are quashed for the reason that they were made wrongly, it will have to be directed that the names of students
who are wrongly admitted should be removed from the rolls of the institutions. Those who infringed the rules must pay for their lapse and the
wrong done to the deserving students has to be rectified. In this case, since it is seen that all the 600 candidates were admitted without assessment,
the whole selection is liable to be quashed.
The candidates who have been selected need not be impleaded or told since it is clear from the discussion above that they were also party to
this manipulation. But for their active connivance, they would not have been awarded marks without their being an interview. Besides, I am holding
that the whole selection is illegal and for any benefit derived out of that selection, the selected candidates cannot claim right.
For all these reasons, it is necessary to mould the relief sought for in these writ petitions in the interest of justice and in the facts and
circumstances of the case. Therefore, my conclusion is as follows"":
(1) The proceedings of the Registrar and the guidelines awarding 50% of the marks for the interview is arbitrary, illegal and is in violation of the law
declared by the Supreme Court.
(2) There was no assessment of marks in the interview since there is practi-cably no possibility fir assessing the candidates within the time allowed.
(3) The marks were distributed to suit the convenience of the candidates and the respondents so that it comes above 94. Thus, there is a clear
manipulation of marks and the whole selection is illegal.
(4) The selection is obviously on extraneous considerations and not by following the rules and regulations.
For all these reasons, the selection of the 600 candidates for the Diploma in Co-operative courses for the Institute at Nagercoil on the basis of
the interview held on 19.7.99 and 20.7.99 is set aside. The respondents are directed to hold fresh interview prescribing 15% for the interview and
make a fresh selection within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of 3 the order. The writ petitions are allowed with a cost
of Rs. 2,000 each. Consequently, the connected W.M.Ps. are closed.