Service law – Selection process adopted by the Selection Committee – Challenged to – Invitation of applications by the University for appointment of Physical Training Instructors-PTIs in four of its constituent colleges – Applications submitted by the appellant and the private respondents, thereafter called for interviews – Selection Committee conducted four different sets of interviews for each candidate applying to four colleges, on the same day – Good variation in the marks assigned to the candidates in the interview – Selection of the private respondents – Single Judge of the High Court holding that the selection as flawed and arbitrary, terminated the services of the private respondents – However, the Division Bench of the High Court quashed the order of termination – Correctness:
Held: Once an advertisement has been issued and the selection criteria prescribed, there is little scope for relaxing the norms, more so, by the Selection Committee unless and until it can be adequately demonstrated that it had the power to do so – Finding of the Single Judge of the High Court that the entire process adopted by the Selection Committee was arbitrary, irrational, and is liable to be set aside, is concurred with – Criteria fixed by the Selection Committee was neither revealed in the advertisement, nor disclosed to the candidates prior to or even at the time of conducting the interviews – Selection Committee on its own fixed a total of 100 marks and assigned different marks for different academic qualifications, 30 per cent of the total marks was fixed for interview, on the day of the interview itself – Instead of conducting a single interview for each candidate particularly, since all of them had applied and submitted separate applications for seeking appointment in the four constituent colleges under the University, the Selection Committee conducted four sets of interviews in respect of each of the candidates who had applied for appointment in different colleges – Close look at the marks assigned in the interviews showed the erratic assessment made by the Members of the Selection Committee – Thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is quashed and set aside – Judgment of the Single Judge is restored – Appointment orders in respect of the private respondents are quashed and set aside. [Para 13, 14, 15, 18] Service jurisprudence – Selection Process – Power of Selection Committee:
Held: Selection process is bound by the terms and conditions of an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates – Unless it can be demonstrated that an advertisement has been issued contrary to any Statute or the applicable rules, it is binding on all the participants – Even the Selection Committee does not have the jurisdiction to lay down a separate yardstick or basis for selection as that would be tantamount to legislating rules of selection – Once the process of selection commences, the criteria prescribed in the advertisement for conducting the selection of the eligible candidates cannot be altered – Once an advertisement has been issued and the selection criteria prescribed, there is little scope for relaxing the norms, more so, by the Selection Committee unless and until it can be adequately demonstrated that it had the power to do so – If the selection criteria is tinkered with in midstream, a party can have a legitimate grievance. [Para 10, 10.4]
Service jurisprudence – Appointment/selection – Vested right of selection:
Held: Merely by applying for a post pursuant to an advertisement, a candidate does not automatically acquire any vested right of selection – He only acquires a right for being considered for selection strictly in accordance with the extant rules. [Para 10.3]
LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Others v. State of Orissa and Others (1995) 6 SCC 1: [1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 419; Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1967) SC 1910: [1968] 1 SCR 111; B.S. Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (1980) Supp. SCC 524; P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and Others v. Union of India and Others (1984) 2 SCC 141: [1984] 2 SCR 200; Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India and Others (1985) 3 SCC 721: [1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 367; Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa (1987) 4 SCC 646: [1987] 3 SCR 1097; Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Others (2011) 12 SCC 85: [2011] 11 SCR 635; Krishna Rai and Others v. Banaras Hindu University and Others (2022) 8 SCC 713: [2022]
8 SCC 713; N.T. Devin Katti and Others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Others (1990) 3 SCC 157; Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat 2023 SCC OnLine SC 167; Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission and B. Swapna and Others (2005) 4 SCC 154: [2005] 2 SCR 991; Mahendran v. State of Karnataka (1990) 1 SCC 411: [1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 385; Gopal Krushna Rath v. M.A.A. Baig (1999) 1 SCC 544: [1999] 1 SCC 544; Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 141: [1984]
2 SCR 200 - referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
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.