2008 Supreme(SC) 258

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. G. Balakrishnan, CJI., R. V. Raveendran & J. M. Panchal, JJ.
K.Manjusree – PETITIONER
Vs.
State of A.P. & Anr. - RESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 1313 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP [C] No.18330/2006) With WP [C] Nos.51/2007 and 97/2007 & SLP [C] No.[CC Nos.7178-79/2007]
Decided on : 15/02/2008

Importent Point:
Changing the criteria after completion of the selection process and introducing a new requirement is illegal.
SLP filed by a party who is not aggrieved, not a party to any of the writ petition that too belatedly, is liable to be rejected as not maintainable.

Headnote:(a) Service Law - Recruitment of District and Sessions Judges in A.P. - Rules did not prescribe any procedure for selection - Entire process of recruitment of District Judges was to be dealt with by the Administrative Committee and the decisions of the Administrative Committee were placed before the Full Court for its consideration and approval - Accordingly, the marks for written examination and interview were fixed as 75 and 25 respectively - Minimum qualifying marks for written examination was fixed as 50% for open category, 40% for B and 35% for ST - Entire process of selection was done by the Selection committee on the basis that there was no minimum marks for interview - Introducing minimum qualifying marks for interview also after the selection process was over, not permissible. (Paras 16 to 19 and 24)

       (b) Service Law - Recruitment of District and Sessions Judges in A.P. - The inter se merit of the candidates were erroneously prepared with reference to a total of 125 marks, comprising 100 for the written examination and 25 for the interview - In view of the Administrative Committee having clearly resolved on 30.11.2004 that evaluation of performance should be with reference to a maximum marks of 75 for written examination and 25 for interview it was necessary to scale down the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination (with reference to a maximum of 100 marks) proportionately to arrive at the marks with reference to a maximum of 75 marks - No infirmity in the decision. (Para 21)

       (c) Service Law - Recruitment of District and Sessions Judges in A.P. - The Sub-Committee applied the minimum percentage of 50%, 40% and 35% for OC, BC, SC/ST even in regard to interviews in preparing the final list - This being inconsistent with the existing procedure and introduced after the recruitment processes were over, was impermissible. (Para 24)

       (1984)2 SCC 141; (1985)3 SCC 721; (1987)4 SCC 646; (2001)10 SCC 51 - Relied upon

       (d) Service Law - Recruitment - Prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal - Changing the criteria after completion of the selection process and introducing qualifying marks for interview, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview is illegal. (Para 29)

       (e) Judicial Review - Administrative Committee and Interview Committee were only delegates of the Full Court and the Full Court had absolute power to determine or regulate the process of selection and to modify the decisions of the Administrative Committee - However, the Full Court could not have introduced a new requirement of minimum marks in interviews, which had the effect of eliminating candidates, who would otherwise be eligible and suitable for selection; after the recruitment process was over - It was impermissible. (Para 30)

       (f) Constitution of India - Article 136 - SLP filed by a party who is not aggrieved, not a party to any of the writ petition, that too belatedly, is liable to be rejected as not maintainable. (Para 34)

       Facts of the case:

       1. Government of Andhra Pradesh issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to ten posts of District & Sessions Judges (Grade II) in the A.P. State Higher Judicial Service by direct recruitment.

       2. Administrative Committee recommended list of ten candidates but the Full Court did not agree with the selection criteria with regard to allocation of marks for written test and interview and modified the same.

       3. Accordingly, nine candidates were finally recommended by the administrative Committee for appointment. One vacancy relating to Scheduled Caste (Women) was left unfilled as there was no qualified candidate.

       4. Two of the candidates whose names were found in the first list and who got excluded in the second list filed writ petitions which were dismissed.

       Findings of the Court:

        Action of the High Court in introducing a new requirement after the recruitment process was over was impermissible.

       Result:

        Judgment of the High Court set aside with a direction to the AP High Court to redraw the merit list.

       WP(C) No.51/2007 and WP(C) No.97/2007 do not survive for consideration.

       SLP by Thirumala Devi is not maintained.