AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Bihar Vikas Mission and the State.",,
These three appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 5th October, 2016 passed in CWJC No. 12822 of 2016 and other analogous cases",,
whereby the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the results of the recruitment carried out by the respondents in respect of certain posts,,
of Associates the qualifications whereof were advertised on 23rd February, 2016 for achieving the aims and objects of the Bihar Vikas Mission,",,
Government of Bihar, Patna.",,
The appellants’ grievance is that in spite of having been successful in the recruitment process, they have not been finally selected as the",,
respondents proceeded to introduce a new criteria of a minimum cut-off marks to be achieved by the candidates in their respective categories during,,
interview. This criteria according to the appellants was not part of the advertisement nor was it known to either the candidates nor did it exist prior to,,
finalization of the interview of the candidates. It is only at the time of the preparation of the results by the selection committee that this criteria was,,
introduced for the purpose of eliminating candidates on the criteria of not having attained the minimum of the marks the cut-off whereof was,,
prescribed after the interview had been held and the recruitment process was over. In short, the submission raised by the learned counsel on behalf of",,
the appellants is that the rules of the game have been altered after the game had been played resulting in an arbitrary elimination of the appellants who,,
otherwise stood selected in order of their merit as per the procedure prescribed under the advertisement which did not contain any minimum cut-off,,
marks to be obtained by a candidate during interview.,,
For this, the learned counsel for the appellants have heavily relied on the terms and conditions of the interview and the factual assertion made in",,
paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and sworn by Shri Neelkamal dated 30th September, 2016 where according to",,
the appellants, the respondents have come out with a reason to support their decision of introducing the cut-off marks in the interview which according",,
to the appellants was impermissible and is even not reflected in the decision taken on 1st July, 2016. Learned counsel for the appellants have invited",,
the attention of the Court to the judgment in the case of K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. delivered on 15th February, 2008",,
reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 to substantiate their submissions. It has been further contended that even though the said judgment is under reference,,
before a Larger Bench in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors vs. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. delivered on 20th March, 2013 reported in",,
(2013) 4 SCC 540, yet the issue raised in the aforesaid reference would not be affecting the case of the appellants inasmuch as in the present case the",,
rules of the game have admittedly been altered after the Selection Committee process attained its finality with the conclusion of the interview. It is,,
therefore submitted that the reference made to the Larger Bench would not be an impediment in proceeding to consider this case where on the,,
admitted facts the respondents have introduced the criteria after the selection process was over and which now stands explained by them in paragraph,,
18 of the counter affidavit referred to hereinabove. It is urged that the learned Single Judge has completely ignored to consider this aspect of the,,
matter and has committed an error in relying on the judgment in the case of Yogesh Yadav vs. Union of India reported in (2013) 14 SCC 623.,,
It is also on record that a Division Bench of this Court explored the possibility of extending benefits keeping in view the status and qualification of the,,
appellants by calling upon the respondents to inform the Court as to whether it was possible to consider the candidates against other vacancies that,,
came to be subsequently notified and were otherwise available, to which a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed captioned as the second",,
supplementary affidavit dated 3rd October, 2018 where a detailed analysis by the respondents has been placed on record to contend that it was",,
otherwise also not possible to accommodate the appellants.,,
It is in this background that the learned counsel for the appellants contend that they should and must succeed as they fulfill the entire eligibility criteria,,
as prescribed in the advertisement and do not fall short of any merit as fixed therein, hence their elimination by the introduction of a criteria post",,
selection is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.,,
The impugned judgment has been defended by the learned Advocate General contending that firstly the selection process had not been finally,,
concluded as the results were yet to be declared, and if at this stage that in order to ensure the selection of the best out of those who came within the",,
zone of consideration that a benchmark was introduced before making any final selection, no prejudice is caused to any of the appellants as it was",,
open to the State employer to choose the best and it is not the case of the appellants that any person having secured lesser marks than them have,,
been selected. In the absence of any such material and without there being any element of factual malice alleged, the contention that the appellants",,
stood selected by virtue of the process already completed is not correct inasmuch as the employer retains the authority even to the extent of not,,
making recruitment in spite of the selection process having successfully proceeded. In effect, the contention is that no indefeasible right has accrued in",,
favour of the appellants so as to vest them with any benefits in order to secure the protection of their rights. The contention is that they have been,,
considered and they were within the zone of consideration and no procedure was introduced intentionally so as to eliminate them from the zone of,,
consideration. The minimum benchmark of marks in the interview was fixed only to select the best out of the entire candidates and this sorting out by,,
the employer by applying a rational criteria is nowhere arbitrary nor does it offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is urged that the learned,,
Single Judge did not commit any error in relying on the judgment in the case of Yogesh Yadav (supra) and, therefore, the law, as applied by the",,
learned Single Judge clearly answers this issue. He submits that even though during the course of the pendency of this appeal it was brought to the,,
notice of the Court about a similar issue having been raised before the Supreme Court before a Larger Bench, yet on the facts of the present case it is",,
evident that in the absence of any violation of legal or fundamental rights or even the terms of the advertisement, the appeal does not deserve to be",,
entertained. He contends that the provisions of the advertisement in no way prohibit or limit the powers of the employer to adopt a rational process for,,
selecting the candidate, which in the present case in no way prejudices the cause of any candidate or is otherwise in violation of Article 14 or 16 of the",,
Constitution of India. The appellants have been given an equal opportunity to prove their excellence during interview and if the employer has decided,,
to adopt a minimum criteria of excellence, then the same does not amount to altering the rules of the game after the game has been played.",,
We have considered the submissions advanced and having gone through the pleadings it would be apt to clear at the outset that the advertisement did,,
not contain any declaration of a minimum prescription of marks to be secured by a candidate during interview. The selection process proceeded and,,
ultimately when the results were placed before the Selection Committee, a decision was taken on 1st July, 2016, which is extracted as under:-",,
“fnukda 01-07-2016 dks fodkl vk;qDr lg v/;{k p;u lfefr] fcgkj fodkl fe’ku dh v/;{krk esa lEié cSBd dh dk;ZokghA,,
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&,,
mifLFkfr,,
1- iz/kku lfpo] foÙk foHkkx,,
2 iz/kku lfpo] lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx,,
3- iz/kku lfpo okf.kT;dj foHkkx,,
4- lnL; lfpo] fcgkj fodkl fe’ku,,
5- fe’ku funs’kd] fcgkj fodkl fe’ku,,
6- izks0 jkts’k dqekj] ,lksfl,V izksQslj pUnzdqIr izca/ku laLFkku",,
7- izks0 T;ksfr oekZ] lgk;d izksQslj pUnzxqIr izca/ku laLFkku,,
dk;Zokgh,,
fnukad 23-02-2016 dks NIT reference no. BBM/2015-,,
16/HR-02 }kjk foKkfir 7 inksa ds fy, fo’ks""kKksa dks lafonk ij fcgkj fodkl fe’ku esa fu;kstu gsrq p;u lEcU/kh cSBd gqbZA",,
mijksDr foKkiu ds fo:) v|ru dh xbZ dkjZokbZ ls lHkh lnL;ksa dks voxr djk;k x;kA lHkh inksa ds fo:) lk{kkRdkj fofHké frfFk;ksa esa fd;s x;s Fks],,
vafre lk{kkRdkj 27-06-2016 dks lEié gqvk FkkA foxr fnukad 10-05-2016 dks lEiUu foxr cSBd esa p;u dh izfØ;k ls lEcfU/kr dfri; fu.kZ; fy;s x;s,,
Fks] ftlesa izeq[k Fkk & izR;sd vH;FkhZ ds vkosnu ij eqY;kadu fdl vk/kkj ij fd;k tk;sxk ,oa blds fy, D;k ekinaM gksaxs \ mu eki.naMks ds vk/kkj ij",,
lHkh oS/k izkIr vkosnsuksa dk ewy;kadu dj] bldh tk¡p fo’ks""k nyksa ds }kjk djkbZ xbZ Fkh rnqijkar ,d inokj@dksfVokj es/kklwph rS;kj dh xbZA",,
mDr cSBd esa ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd izR;sd in ds fy, es/kklwph ds vk/kkj ij inokj@dksfVokj foKkfir inksa dh la[;k dk nks xquk vH;fFkZ;ksa dks",,
lk{kkRdkj ds fy, cqyk;k tk;] tks es/kklwph esa lcls Åij gksa] rnuqlkj vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks inokj@dksfVokj p;u djrs gq, lk{kkRdkj ds fy, fofHké",,
frfFk;ksa dks cqyk;k x;k FkkA,,
lk{kkRdkj ds fy, p;u lfefr ds lnL; dks feydkj nks cksMZ xfBr fd;k x;k] ftlesa izR;sd cksMZ esa pUnzxqIr izca/ku laLFkku] iVuk ls Hkh 2&2",,
fo’ks""kKksa dks lfEefyr fd;k x;k FkkA",,
ftl izdkj vH;fFkZ;ksa ds CV/ vkosnu ds vk/kkj ij ewy;kadu ds ekin.M r; fd;s x;s Fks] mlh izdkj lk{kkRdkj ds fy, Hkh fofHkéekin.nksa rFkk Essential",,
Qualification, Desirable Qualification, duties and responsibilities rFkk values and competencies to be showcased by the candidates, inksa ds fy, dk;Z",,
vuqHko rFkk jkT; ,oa dsUnz ljdkj ;k vU; [;kfrizkIr laLFkk esa dk;Z dk vuqHko ds lkFk&lkFk excellent written and oral skills dk Hkh /;ku lk{kkRdkj ds",,
le; j[kk x;kA,,
;s lHkh in fcgkj fodkl fe’ku ds mÃs’;ksa dh iwfrZ gsrq foKkfir fd;s x;s FksA fcgkj fodkl fe’ku dk eq[; mÃs’; fodkflr fcgkj ds 7,,
fuf’p;& d`f""k jksM eSi] ekuo fodkl fe’ku] dkS’ky fodkl fe’ku] vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk vksj vkS|ksfxd izksRlkgu dk;ZØe ,oa ladYiksa dks",,
fe’ku eksM esa fØ;kUo;u lqfuf’pr djuk gSA blds fy, laLFkkaxr O;oLFkk dks lqn`tkuk gSA bu mÃs’;ksa dh iwfrZ ds fy, ds fy, ’kSf{kd leqnk;] futh {ks= ,oa flfoy lkslkbZVh ds Kku lalk/kuksa ,oa vuqHkoksa dk Hkh mi;ksx",,
djus ds fy, fo’ks""kKksa] fopkjdks] vuqHkoh is’ksojksa ,oa dk;ks esa n{k ;qokvksa dks vko’;drkuqlkj fu;ksftr dj fe’ku ds dk;ksZ dks",,
Rofjr xfr ls lEikfnr djuk gSA fe’ku ds bu nkf;Roksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, ;g vko’;d gS fd] ftu is’ksoj n{k O;fDr;ksa dks dk;Z gsrq",,
pquk tk;s] os vius&vius {ks= esa vxz.kh gksaA bu vk/kkjksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, nksuksa lk{kkRdkj lfefr }kjk lHkh lk{kkRdkj ds fy, vkeaf=r",,
vH;kfFkZ;ksa dk CV ,oa vU; n{krk dh ij[k lk{kkRdkj ds nkSjku dh xbZA blls izkIRk vuqHko ds vk/kkj ij p;u gsrq fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS%&",,
1- fe’ku ds dk;ksZ ds Rofjr ,oa izHkkodkjh dk;ksaZ ds fy, loZFkk mfpr gksa] ftudk rduhdh Kku mPpre gks] ftuesa yhMjf’ki vkSj Vhe dks ,d lkFk ysdj pyus dh",,
{kerk gks rfd blds lkFk&lkFk presentation ,oa communication skill esa Hkh os n{k gksaA",,
2- lk{kkRdkj gsrq lHkh inksa ds fy, dksfVokj fuEu izdkj ls cut off marks fu/kZfjr fd;s x;s%&",,
¼d½ lkekU; oxZ & 60 vad,,
¼[k½ fiNM+k/ vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ / vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ efgyk;sa & 55 vad,,
¼x½ vuqlwfpr tkfr@ tu tkfr & 50 vadA,,
3- lk{kkRdkj ds vadks dks tksM+rs gq, ,oa fu/kkZfjr cut off marks ds vk/kkj ij rS;kj dh xbZ es/kklqph esa in ,oa dksfVokj vH;fFkZ;ksa ds dqy",,
izkIrkadks ds cut off marks p;u gsrq fuEu izdkj fu/kkZfjr fd;s x;s%& ¼d½ lkekU; oxZ & 80 vad,,
¼[k½ fiNM+k/ vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ / vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ efgyk;sa & 70 vad,,
¼x½ vuqlwfpr tkfr@ tu tkfr & 60 vadA,,
lnL; lfpo dks funsf’kr fd;k x;k fd os mijksDr fu.kZ;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vafre :i ls in ,oa dksfVokj p;u lwph cuk;s ,oa bl ij v/;{k p;u lfefr dh Lohd`fr izkIr",,
dj fu;kstu dh dkjZokbZ djs,,
/kU;okn Kkiu ds lkFk cSBd lekIr dh xbZAâ€,,
This decision was announced on 25th July, 2016 through a public notice which came to be assailed in the writ petitions filed by the appellants. The",,
same is extracted hereinunder:-,,
 Government of Bihar,,
 Bihar Vikas Mission,,
Memo No……..92/camp Important Notice,,
 Dated 25-07-2016,,
Â,,
It is hereby informed to all concerned that Bihar Vikas Mission advertised vacancies for seven posts vide its reference Ref. No-BVM/2015-16/HR-02,,
dated 23.02.2016. Preliminary verification of applications was conducted and it was found that many applications are not fit to be considered for,,
evaluation. As a consequence of this a list of rejected applications were uploaded on the website of Cabinet Secretariat Department. The applications,",,
which were found fit for evaluations, were evaluated, as per the yardsticks decided by the selections committee of BVM. Even during the process of",,
evaluation some applications were found fit to be rejected. As a result of this a supplementary list of rejected applications were uploaded on the,,
website of Cabinet Secretariat Department. This time the list of accepted applications were also uploaded on the website in their alphabetical order.,,
When the lists of rejected applications were uploaded, objections were seeked from the agrieved candidates. After the completion of scheduled",,
date for filing objection, a proper redressal of all the applications/objections were done and a list of redressal was also uploaded on the same website.",,
After uploading of all the above said three lists, some objections were received were that their names are neither in the rejections list nor in the",,
selection list. These applications were properly dealt with. As per these objections a supplementary list of accepted applications are being uploaded,,
with this notice.,,
As per the decision of selection committee, two times of vacancy in each category in all the posts, the candidates were called for interview. The",,
process of interview was conducted on four dated. At the time of interview, verification of certificates and wherever required. A List of changes in",,
marks after verification of documents/certificates is also being uploaded on the same website with this notice.,,
After the completion of interview, as per the need and required proficiency of the organisation like BVM, and to maintained the quality of the",,
professional/technical experts, a cut-off marks of interview and total cut off marks were decided by the selection committee. In interview, the cut-off",,
marks for General category is 60 marks, for BC & MBC category is 55 and for SC & ST category was decided to be 60. As per the above process",,
following lists are being uploaded :-I. Marking of all accepted candidates. Annexure-1 II.List of candidates (two times of vacancy) called for,,
interview. Annexure-II III. Marks of candidates called for interview (with change of marks at the time of verification of document) with interview,,
marks. Annexure â€"III IV. List of candidates finally selected as per the decision of selection committee. Annexure IV V Lists as per para 2.,,
Annexure IV,,
Member Secretary,,
Bihar Vikas Mission Bihar, Patna.",,
The aforesaid documents on a careful perusal would indicate that it is in order to achieve the object of the Mission, best of professionals were to be",,
selected and it is after going through their curriculum vitae and level of efficiency the Selection Committee came to the conclusion that in order to,,
select the best a criteria deserves to be adopted to ensure the entry of the best of the lot.,,
Learned counsel for the appellants are correct in their submission that neither in the Resolution dated 1st July, 2016 nor in the impugned notice dated",,
25th July, 2016 was there any detail indication about the reasons that led the selecting body to adopt the criteria of selecting those who would fall",,
above the minimum cut off marks that was prescribed by the Selection Committee in the meeting held on 1st July, 2016.",,
On the other hand, the respondents in paragraph 18 of their counter affidavit referred to above categorically stated as follows:-",,
“It is stated here that during the interview it was found that candidates who had professional qualifications from reputed engineering and,,
management institutes had better comprehension of their filed of specialisation and showed a better understanding of the nature of the duties and,,
responsibilities to be discharged by them keeping in view the purposes for which the Mission had been constituted than the candidates who had such,,
qualifications from other professional institutes/through correspondence courses even though these candidates could obtain better percentage of marks,,
in their profession qualifications awarded to them by their respective Institutes, during the course of interview their understanding and comprehension",,
of their filed of specialisation was not upto mark and the competencies and values to be showcased by the candidates as demanded and required for,,
the mission were below average. During the course of interviews, the candidates were also judged on the basis of their curriculum vitae, claims",,
against criteria and general easy which were submitted by them with their application and were supposed to have been written by them personally.,,
Those candidates, who could not explain the achievements written in the above mentioned documents submitted by them, were lacking in basic",,
communication skill and required competencies and values. It means that claim made by such candidates were seem to be not genuine. In this,,
scenario, the selection committee rightly decided to fix the cut off marks for interview as well as cut off for total marks obtained, so that the vest",,
qualified brains can be selected who could help the mission and the departments to fulfil their goals and objectives.â€,,
On a perusal of the aforesaid averments made in the counter affidavit it appears that what the Selection Committee had in mind is that some of the,,
candidates who were from other professional institutes or had attained qualifications through correspondence course, even though had better",,
percentage of marks awarded to them against their professional qualifications, but during the course of interview their understanding and",,
comprehension on the field of specialization was not up to the mark. It was also observed that candidates could not explain the achievements acquired,,
by them as indicated in the documents submitted by them in support of their candidature.,,
It is trite law that reasons cannot be supplemented through an affidavit which otherwise must exist in the ultimate order passed or the decision taken.,,
However, in the instant case, we find that the decision dated 1st July, 2016 did specifically indicate that there were factors revealed while interacting",,
with the candidates during the interview that an opinion was formed to fix a minimum cut off merit. Thus, there is a clear link between the recital",,
contained in the decision dated 1st July,2016 (as emphasized in bold therein) and the averments contained in the counter- affidavit extracted",,
hereinabove, which does not in any way run counter to it. It is this recital in the counter-affidavit which is being contested by the appellants on the",,
ground that the same is neither rational nor can it be relied on as it is neither specifically mentioned either in the decision or in the impugned notice.,,
 We are unable to accept this contention inasmuch as we have examined the intent and purpose for which such professionals were to be selected,,
and which is borne out from the Notification dated 28th June, 2016 wherein the Bihar Vikas Mission was established as a society by the Government",,
to function as such, the registration whereof was made under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1816. The objectives of the Mission are",,
spelt out in clause 4 which is extracted hereinunder:-,,
“4 Objectives: The Mission will have the following objectives:-,,
i. To ensure implementation in mission mode, fixation of priorities and monitoring of achievements against targets of programs and other resolutions of",,
7 Nischay for developed Bihar within the Programs of Good Governance 2015-2020, Agriculture Road Map, Human Development Mission, Skill",,
Development Mission, Patna High Court LPA No.2120 of 2016 dt.26-11-2018 17/26 Infrastructure development and Industrial incentives.",,
ii. To ensure strengthening of institutional arrangement and to promote modern and better work culture for a faster and more effective implementation,,
Criteria,Total Marks,Marks Awarded
Understanding of the job and
suitability",20,
Technical understanding,20,
Analy(cid:29)cal Approach and
Conceptual Thinking",15,
Leadership Quality and Team
engagement",15,
Ethics and Integrity,10,
Organiza(cid:29)onal Commitment and
Flexibility",10,
Communica(cid:29)on and Presenta(cid:29)on
skills",5,
Over-all job-fit,5,
Total,100,
On a perusal of the aforesaid break up of marks during interview, it is evident that respective attributes have been allocated different marks for the",,
assessment of a candidate.,,
The question is as to whether fixing of a minimum standard of overall efficiency is within the powers of the Selection Committee for being introduced,,
after the interview has been held. In our considered opinion the stage of assessing the minimum marks to be obtained by a candidate for ultimately,,
being selected would fall for consideration only after the aforesaid assessment has been made and the candidate has been actually interviewed where,,
the Selection Committee had the opportunity to interact with the candidate and know about the status of his professional achievements and his,,
potential to occupy the post.,,
The assessment of the performance capacity of the candidates would arrive only after the interview is held. In this regard, if on a comparative study",,
of the professional achievements of the candidates for the posts in question, the Selection Committee decided to fix a minimum benchmark for picking",,
up the best of the candidates amongst them so as to subserve the ultimate objective and purpose of the Mission, then the same cannot be said to be",,
arbitrary so as to prejudice any vested rights of the appellants nor does it amount to raising the bar of eligibility. As noted earlier it is not the case,,
where persons having acquired lesser merit have been offered appointment resulting in discrimination. We, therefore, find no error with the procedure",,
adopted by the Selection Committee in judging the merits of the candidate for their professional engagement by fixing of a minimum cut off merit to be,,
achieved by a candidate during interview. The merit of assessment cannot be compromised by a reassessment through judicial review unless the,,
assessment by the selecting body is perverse or beyond reasonable comprehension. This criteria of a minimum benchmark is rational and has a nexus,,
with the object sought to be achieved. It does not amount to raising the bar of eligibility.,,
The selection process had not been completed as the results had not been declared. The contention of the learned counsel is that once the marks,,
allocated to the appellants were known to the Selection Committee, it is thereafter that the minimum cut off marks was prescribed with a purpose to",,
eliminate the appellants. This argument is not acceptable. No mala fides against any of the members of the selecting body has been alleged so as to,,
gather an intentional decision motivated to cause prejudice to the appellants alone. The choice is not an outcome of any selective approach so as to,,
infer a mala fide. It was a decision in respect of all those who had faced the interview and were otherwise eligible. This process was not a declaration,,
of ineligibility but fell within the realm of criteria of selection of the most suitable candidates. It therefore does not reflect any mala fides on the part of,,
the selecting body. The knowledge of marks awarded during interview cannot be said to have any malicious impact on the decision ultimately taken.,,
Coming to the issue relating to the dynamics of the proposition that the rules of game cannot be changed after the game has been played, we find that",,
while proceeding to refer the judgment in the case of K. Manjusree (supra), the three Judges Bench in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) has",,
also referred to other judgments particularly the judgment in the case of State of Haryana vs. Subhash Chandra Marwaha reported in (1974) 3 SCC,,
From a perusal of paragraphs 11 to 14 of the order in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), we find that the issue raised for reference is about",,
the alteration in the eligibility criteria. In the instant case, it is not the stand of the State that the appellants were ineligible to apply and face the",,
interview. To the contrary, it is in order to select the best out of those who were within the zone of consideration that the minimum benchmark to be",,
obtained during interview was fixed. We, therefore, see no reason to keep the matter pending on account of the reference before a Larger Bench",,
moreso in view of the reasons which led to the adoption of a criteria for selection after the interview and before declaration of final results. In our,,
opinion such a professional engagement, in order to fulfill the objective of the Mission, inherently requires the scrutiny and selection of the most",,
eminent who possess a higher level of proficiency and skill in their respective fields. The level of proficiency to be possessed by a candidate on the,,
basis of assessment during interview is the prerogative of the employer unless it could be shown that such a criteria is otherwise arbitrary or violative,,
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We find that in order to sort out the best and select those who would be able to fulfill the object of the,,
Mission with their ultimate capacity, cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The accomplishment of a candidate can be",,
explored during interview, and apart from the objective allocation of marks, the Selection Committee cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily by",,
deciding to select only those who have achieved a minimum level of performance during interview. This does not amount to changing the rules of the,,
game inasmuch as firstly there was no such prohibition in the advertisement, secondly no prejudice has been caused to the appellants and thirdly no",,
malice in fact has been alleged. The entire exercise was to choose the best players from amongst those who had played the game. Since the,,
introduction of the criteria by the Selection Committee is not to deliberately non-suit the appellants, the decision dated 1st July, 2016 that has",,
culminated into the impugned notice dated 25th July, 2016 cannot be said to be suffering from malice in law.",,
We have also come across some other judgments that deserve mention, namely, that in the case of Salam Samarjeet Singh vs. High Court of Manipur",,
at Imphal delivered on 7th October, 2016 reported in (2016) 10 SCC 484. A difference of opinion was recorded by the Bench in the said report and",,
the case was directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench for final adjudication. One of the Hon’ble Judges held that in the absence of any,,
prejudice being caused to the appellant therein the decision that had been taken for fixing a minimum percentage of marks to be obtained by the,,
candidate in the interview was not unlawful. However, in the dissenting opinion of the other Hon’ble Judge it was recorded in paragraph 45 that",,
there was a clear impediment in proceeding to lay down a minimum pass mark for interview which was meant only for the appellant as he was the,,
lone candidate for consideration. The aforesaid was, therefore, a clear suggestion where only one candidate was available and he was sought to be",,
eliminated by introduction of the said Rule.,,
However, the same Bench in a judgment delivered thereafter on 9th November, 2016 in the case of V. Lavanya and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu",,
reported in (2017) 1 SCC 322 came to a unanimous conclusion that no prejudice has been caused to the candidates as the selection criteria had not,,
been altered in their respect, and the purpose of relaxation, which was extended to other candidates, was to increase the participation of more",,
candidates of a particular category. However, while further proceeding to consider the various judgments on this issue, including those that have been",,
relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Bench in paragraph 35 of the report did refer to the matter pending before the Larger Bench in",,
the Apex Court and indicated the distinction between the minimum eligibility criteria for selection and altering the mere procedure of selection.,,
On an overall conspectus of the entire law and the facts of the present case, we see no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single",,
Judge for all what has been stated above, as the respondents do not appear to have committed any illegality nor have they violated any constitutional",,
provision so as to invite the interference of the High Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.,,
In the result, all the appeals fail and are, hereby, dismissed.",,