2006 Supreme(SC) 858

2006(7) Supreme 420
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
Pitta Naveen Kumar & Ors.—Appellants
versus
Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & Ors.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4121 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6789 of 2006)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 4131, 4130 and 4132 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 6516, 7016 & 8275 of 2006)
All decided on 14-9-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : P.P. Rao, L. Nageswara Rao, Sr. Advocates, C.K. Sucharita, Abhishek Kumar, Anshuman Ashok, D. Mahesh Babu, M. Surondra Rao, R. Santhan Krishnan, Ms. Radha Rani, Praveen K. Pandey, P. Vijay Kumar, K.N. Rai, Advocates.
For the Respondents : A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Advocate Guntur Prabhakar, Ramakrishna Reddy, Mrs. D. Bharati Reddy, Ms. T. Anamika, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. A candidate does not have any legal right to be appointed. He in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India has only a right to be considered therefor.
2. For selection process when the cut off mark was fixed having regard to the ratio of the candidates eligible for sitting at the written examination, the Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction to pass an interim order directing reduction in the cut off mark.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Rules—Rule 22—Recruitment to more than notified vacancies—Validity—State of Andhra Pradesh notified 301 vacancies in respect of six categories of Group-I services—Procedure for filling up of vacancies was laid down—Standard was fixed as 1:50—A Preliminary examination was conducted—A notification was issued being GOMs No. 164 fixing 1-7-1999, instead of 1-7-2003 as originally stipulated, as the relevant date for fixing the upper age limit for candidates eligible to appear at the examination—A supplemental notification was issued inviting applications for filling up of 170 additional vacancies—A second preliminary test was held for about 51,768 candidates who had applied in response to the said supplemental examination—List was prepared with reference to 524 notified vacancies which included 223 vacancies notified after the issue of the initial notification for 301 vacancies—Applications filed before the Tribunal—An interim order was passed by the Tribunal reducing the cut off marks of appearing in the main examination from 66 to 61 —GOMs No. 200 was passed purported to be in terms of directions of the Tribunal—Petitions filed challenging powers of Tribunal to interfere with percentage of marks fixed by the Commission as cut off marks for enabling the candidates to appear for main examination—Whether the State could reduce the cut off marks—(No)—GOMs No. 163 and 133 held not invalid—GOMs No. 200 dated 30-4-2005 held invalid.

       Held : It is not in dispute that all the candidates who had applied for the said post were having the requisite educational qualifications. In terms of the said advertisement, the selection process was to comprise in three parts, viz.,

       (i)a screening test for the purpose of admitting the candidates to the main written examination.

       (ii)Holding of main examination for those who would become entitled to be admitted to main written examination and, thus, were to be subjected to the process of selection

       (iii)the candidates who obtained minimum qualifying marks in the written examination, as may be fixed by the Commission at their discretion, were to be summoned for oral test in the ratio of 1:2 with reference to the number of vacancies duly following the special representation as laid down in General Rule 22 of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules.(Para 22)

       GOMs No. 200 dated 30th April, 2005 was issued by the State. Although the High Court has opined that the said GOMs was issued upon an independent decision taken by the State of Andhra Pradesh in that behalf, the recitals contained therein does not say so. The notification specifically referred to the interim direction issued by the Tribunal which was treated to be a general direction to admit all the candidates who had appeared in the preliminary examination. It was in the aforementioned situation only the qualifying marks were reduced from 66 to 61 to allow more candidates for the main examination for recruitment to Group 1 service with reference to the notification No. 21 of 2003 and the supplementary notification No. 6 of 2004. The State of Andhra Pradesh, however, did not stop there. As has been noticed hereinbefore, subsequent vacancies were also notified.(Para 23)

       The legal position obtaining in this behalf is not in dispute. A candidate does not have any legal right to be appointed. He in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India has only a right to be considered therefor. Consideration of the case of an individual candidate although ordinarily is required to be made in terms of the extant rules but strict adherence thereto would be necessary in a case where the rules operate only to the disadvantage of the candidates concerned and not otherwise. By reason of the amended notifications, no change in the qualification has been directed to be made. Only the area of consideration has been increased. Those who were not eligible due to age bar in 2003 became eligible if they were within the prescribed age limit as on 01.07.1999. By reason thereof only the field of choice was enlarged.(Para 32)

       Initially, there had been 301 vacancies. 223 vacancies were later on added. 1,52,000 applications were received pursuant to the first advertisement. About 51,768 applications were filed after issuance of the impugned GOs. By reason of the subsequent GOs, however, those who had appeared in the first preliminary examination were debarred from appearing in the second examination. The reason therefor is not far to seek. The result of the first preliminary examination had not been announced. A combined result was announced both in respect of the first preliminary examination as also the second preliminary examination. Both the examinations were held to be a part of the same recruitment process. It may be that in relation thereto different question papers were set or different examiners examined them but it must be borne in mind that the said examinations were held only for the purpose of elimination of candidates. The result of the said examination was not to affect the ultimate selection process.(Para 33)

       If the cut-off mark specified by the State is arbitrary, Article 14 would be attracted. The Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction to pass an interim order directing reduction in the cut-off mark. The cut-off mark at 66 was fixed having regard to the ratio of the candidates eligible for sitting at the written examination at 1:50. An interim order as is well-known is issued for a limited purpose. By reason thereof, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant a final relief.(Para 54)

       Moreover, the Tribunal could not have directed the Commission to do something which was contrary to rules. An interim order is subject to variation or modification. An interim order would ordinarily not survive when the main matter is dismissed. The Commission also did not intend to abide by the said directions. It wanted the State to pass an appropriate order. It was, pursuant to or in furtherance of the said desire of the Commission as also the direction of the Tribunal as contained in its interim order dated 6.1.2005, GOMs 200 was issued. The said Government Order was, thus, not issued by the State of its own. There was no independent application of mind. The statutory requirements for passing an government order independent of the interim directions issued by the Tribunal were wholly absent.(Para 55)

       The standard was fixed as 1:50. The Commission came to the conclusion, having regard to the results published on written examination, that 66 should be the cut-off mark. It need not have been 66 . If the candidature of more candidates was to be taken into consideration, the same would mean that the State shall give a go by to principle of selection fixed by it, viz., 1:50. If the submission of the Commission and consequently, the State is to be accepted that the ratio should be 1:50, the same could not have been reduced to 10:90. A violation of that rule would, in our opinion, be arbitrary.(Para 57)

       In total 558 vacancies were notified. Thus, only 27,900 candidates could have been called for main written examination on the basis of the norms fixed by the State itself. However, the actual number of candidates who passed the examination are said to have been 50,726. Although, actually it is stated that 32,056 candidates appeared. Thus, indisputably, a large number of candidates who had been allowed to appear at the examination were evidently permitted to do so in violation of norm of 1:50, as was specified by the State. The aforementioned rule could not have been relaxed. It did not have any rational basis. 66 cut-off mark was not fixed by the Commission. It was arrived at by the Commission in view of the marks secured by the respective candidates on applying the ratio of 1:50. Once a person falls beyond the said ratio, he was not qualified. He was not to be considered any further. The State and the Commission had themselves fixed three different stages of selection process which were required to be adhered to.(Para 58)

       Relaxation can be given only if there exists any provision therefor in the Rules. GOMs No. 200 dated 30th April, 2005, in our opinion, must fall having regard to the vacation of interim order by the Tribunal and consequent dismissal of the original application. It will bear repetition to state that, while issuing the same, the Government did not apply its own mind. Only those candidates who came within the purview of the rule existing theretobefore could have been subjected to further selection process.(Para 60)