Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016: r 10, 12 – Constitution of India – Art.320 – Power of Commission, scope – Pursuant to advertisement, the respondents appeared in the computer-based screening test and cleared the same – Thereafter, they appeared in the written test and also cleared the same – Interview was scheduled and then the appellant-Commission fixed the cut-off marks for interview to be 26 out of 40 – Interview took place and respondents were declared unsuccessful – Respondents challenged before the High Court fixing of cut-off marks by the appellant-commission upon the premise that as per rr.10 and 12 of the Goa Civil Service Rules, and in light of Art.320 of the Constitution, the appellantcommission had no power to fix the cut- off at 65% at the interview stage and no mention was even made in the advertisement– High Court allowed the respondents’s writ petition holding that the fixing of the 65% minimum qualifying marks in the oral interview was illegal and beyond the powers of the appellant-commission – Hence instant appeal – Held: r.10(5) declares that the marks to be allotted for written examination and oral interview is to be notified in the advertisement – Since there is no mention of minimum to be obtained by any candidate in the interview, therefore such fixing of cut-off marks by appellant- commission is beyond its powers – Service law.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Rule 10 contemplates the holding of a competitive examination and oral interview. The competitive examination is to be conducted by the appellant in the manner notified by the Government from time to time. The proviso provides the appellant with the power to hold a screening test required for shortlisting of candidates. The manner in which it is to be held is a matter to be decided by the Commission from time to time. It is most pertinent to note that Rule 10(3) specifically declares that a candidate must obtain a minimum passing percentage in the competitive written examination. It is pegged at 65 per cent of the total marks. The percentage is purportedly reduced in the case of certain categories. It must noted that Rule 10(5) declares that the marks to be allotted for written examination and oral interview is to be notified in the advertisement inviting the applications by the Commission. Commission cannot be found to have acted contrary to the Rules insofar as, the Commission has, in the advertisement, declared the marks to be alloted for the written examination and oral interview. What is conspicuous by its absence in Rule 10 is any minimum to be obtained by any candidate in the interview. When the question arose as to how the interview should be conducted, the Commission decided on 16.05.2017 to fix 26 marks out of 40 as cut off marks. It no doubt works out at 60 per cent of the total marks in the interview segment. Rules did not provide for a separate minimum for the interview. The advertisement did not provide for a separate minimum in the interview. It is almost a week before the interview that the Commission took the decision in this regard. [Paras 10, 16][666-E-H; 673-B-C]
K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC
512 : [2008] 2 SCR 1025; Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa (1987) 4 SCC 646 : [1987] 3 SCR 1097 – relied on.
M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar (1994) 6 SCC 293 : [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 665; Yogesh Yadav v. UOI & Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 623 : [2013] 8 SCR 194 – distinguished.
2. Rule 12 declares that the Commission is duty bound to forward to the Government the select list. The select list is to be arranged in the order of merit of the candidates. The select list is to be sent arranged in the order of merit which, in turn, is to be determined in accordance with the aggregate marks obtained by each candidate at the competitive written examination and oral interview. The rule maker was conscious of the fact that it has prescribed a separate minimum to be obtained by candidate in the written examination. It also contemplated the holding of an interview but as regards the interview a separate minimum was not stipulated. But at the same time, the law giver has contemplated that the Commission is to prepare a select list wherein merit would dictate the order in which the select list is to be prepared and all that it is to do is to total up the marks obtained by the candidate in the competitive written examination and the oral interview. In other words, the merit list would be dictated by the performance in the competitive examination and interview subject only, no doubt, to the qualification that only those candidates who have obtained 65 marks in the written examination would be qualified. [Paras 11, 12][667-B-E]
3. Even before the filing of the writ petition, the Commission commenced fresh proceedings. While there is a stay of the impugned judgment, this Court had made it clear that the appointments will be subject to the outcome of the special leave petition. Since the appellant fails in its challenge to the impugned order, the respondents must finally obtain redress. Accordingly, the directions contained in the impugned order, it is for Appointing Authority to take the decision in accordance with law in the matter. [Para 22][676-G;677-A]
State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha (1974)
3 SCC 220 : [1974] 1 SCR 165; State of Punjab and Others v. Manjit Singh and Others (2003) (11) SCC 6; Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court and Ors.– referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.