2008 Supreme(SC) 594

2008(2) Supreme 890
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., J.M. Panchal, J.
Hemani Malhotra — Petitioner
versus
High Court of Delhi — Respondent
With
Vineeta Goyal — Petitioner
versus
High Court of Delhi — Respondent
Writ Petition (civil) 490 of 2007
Writ Petition (civil) No. 491 of 2007

IMPORTANT POINT
Authority making rules regulating selection can prescribe by rules minimum marks both for written examination and vive-voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for vive-voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during selection process or after selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Respondent High Court of Delhi issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for 16 vacant posts to be filled up by direct recruitment to Delhi Higher Judicial Service - Petitioner of each petition submitted application in prescribed form and thereafter appeared for written examination - The respondent High Court did not declare result of written examination at all - However, petitioners were asked to appear for interview - Non selection of petitioners after viva- voce test was conducted – Claim of petitioners that Selection Committee had not drawn final merit list on basis of combined result of written examination and interview because if merit list had been drawn on this basis, petitioners would have obtained fourth or fifth position in final merit list as only five candidates had qualified for viva-voce test, and no cut-off marks were prescribed for viva- voce test-According to petitioners minimum cut off marks could not have been prescribed for viva-voce test, after process for selection had commenced - Admittedly at the beginning of selection process, no minimum cut off marks for viva-voce were prescribed for Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2006 - Therefore, prescribing minimum marks for viva-voce was not permissible at all after written test was conducted- Authority making rules regulating selection can prescribe by rules minimum marks both for written examination and viva-voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva-voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during selection process or after selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview - Hence held that prescription of minimum marks by respondent at viva-voce, test was illegal - If marks obtained by petitioners at viva-voce test had been added to marks obtained by them in written test then names of petitioners would have found place in merit list prepared by Respondent-Petitions allowed. (Paras 8 to 12)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Present petitions have been filed under Article 32 of Constitution seeking a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or order to direct respondent High Court of Delhi to amend notice issued by Registrar High Court of Delhi to the effect that the petitioner of each petition, is also declared as selected for being recommended for appointment to the vacant post in Delhi Higher Judicial Service. According to petitioners, minimum cut off marks could not have been prescribed for viva- voce test, after process for selection had commenced.

       Findings of the Court :

        The Court held that admittedly at beginning of selection process, no minimum cut off marks for vive-voce were prescribed for Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2006. Therefore, prescribing minimum marks for vive-voce was not permissible at all after written test was conducted. Authority making rules regulating selection can prescribe by rules minimum marks both for written examination and vive-voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for vive-voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during selection process or after selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Hence held that prescription of minimum marks by respondent at vive-voce, test was illegal. If marks obtained by petitioners at vive-voce test had been added to marks obtained by them in written test then names of petitioners would have found place in merit list prepared by Respondent. Petitions were allowed

       Result : Petitions allowed