1. Recruitment for civil service posts — Dispute over validity of minimum qualifying marks introduced for oral interviews under statutory recruitment rules. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1397
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Goa Public Service Commission – Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Rane & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2779 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C)No. 3587 of 2018)
Decided On : 06-04-2022
The Commission cannot prescribe additional requirements for selection beyond the Rules.
Headnote:
Advertisement - Goa Civil Service Rules - Rule 10, Rule 12
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Commission's power to fix standards for merit — versus — Prohibition on modifying statutory rules to introduce additional qualifying criteria for interviews. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Statutory rules mandate merit lists based on aggregate marks — Absence of prescribed minimums for interviews in rules — Commission's inability to impose extra-statutory qualifications. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 )
4. Public Service Commissions cannot introduce minimum qualifying marks for interviews where statutory rules mandate selection based on aggregate merit of written and oral examinations. (Para 11 , 15 )
5. Appeal dismissed — High Court order restored — Commission directed to prepare and forward select list based on aggregate marks. (Para 21 , 22 )
6. Can a Public Service Commission fix minimum qualifying marks for an interview if the statutory rules are silent on such a minimum?
No. If statutory rules mandate a merit list based on the aggregate marks of written and oral examinations without specifying a minimum for the interview, the Commission cannot impose an additional qualifying standard. (Para 11 , 15 )
7. Does the power to conduct examinations under Article 320 of the Constitution allow a Commission to modify statutory recruitment rules?
No. While the Commission conducts examinations, it must faithfully follow the statutory rules and cannot prescribe additional requirements for selection regarding eligibility or suitability not provided in the rules. (Para 15 , 16 )
8. Can a candidate be disqualified at the appellate stage for lacking an essential qualification if the issue was not raised in the lower court?
Generally, no. If the disqualification is a pure question of fact and was not pleaded or urged before the High Court or in the special leave petition, it cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage. (Para 20 )
JUDGMENT
K. M. Joseph, J. - Leave granted.
1. By Advertisement No. 14/16 published by the appellant, applications were invited for filling up of six posts of unreserved category and three posts in the reserved category under the Goa Civil Service Rules , 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Pursuant to the advertisement, 1866 candidates appeared in the Computer Based screening Test (CBRT) held on 05.03.2017. When the results were declared, only seven candidates including respondent Nos. 1 to 3 before this Court were found to have cleared the test. In terms of the advertisement and the Rules, the written test came to be conducted on 10.04.2017 and 11.04.2017. In the results which came to be declared, out of the seven, only four candidates were found qualified. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were among them. There is one Mr. Vivek Krishna Naik who, no doubt, stood first. On 16.05.2017, the appellant decided to fix the cut off marks with respect to the interview. The total marks fixed for the interview was 40. The appellant fixed cut off marks at 26. The final interview took place on 24.05.2017. Mr. Vivek Krishna Naik was declared successful. The results of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were not declared. Respondents took up the matter before the Chairman of the appellant pointing out the irregularities besides moving the Chief Secretary. Applications were made under the Right to Information Act seeking the information as to why results were not published. This was done by respondent No. 1. We cut the long story short by indicating that on 21.07.2017, a fresh advertisement came to be issued inviting applications for 10 posts of Junior Scale officer of Goa Civil Services.
2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed writ petition on 22.07.2017. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has ordered as follows:
"24. We note that in the affidavit in reply, not obtaining minimum qualifying marks in oral interview pursuant to the decision in the meeting dated 16 May 2017 is the sole reason not to send the names of the Petitioners to the Respondent-State. No other reason than the qualifying marks at the interview is shown to us.
25. In these circumstances, we hold that the action of the Respondent No. 1-Commission is not recommending the names of the Petitioners to the post of Junior Scale Officer of the Goa Civil Services on the ground that they have not secured 65% minimum qualifying marks in the oral interview, is illegal and beyond the powers of the Respondent No. 1-Commission. The decision taken by Respondent No. 1-Commission in the meeting dated 16 May 2017 introducing criteria of 65% minimum qualifying marks at the interview for the post of Junior Scale Officer in the Goa Civil Service, therefore, cannot be sustained and it is quashed and set aside. The Respondent No. 1-Commission will take necessary steps as per Rule 12 of the Rules of 2016 on the basis of the consolidated marks of the Petitioners in the written examination and oral interview without attaching any qualifying criteria to the marks obtained at the oral interview. The Respondent No. 1-Commission will take necessary steps within eight weeks from the date the order is uploaded to the server."
3. In the appeal, we have heard Shri Pratap Venugopal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Devadatt Kamat learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2, and Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would complain that the High Court has erred in placing reliance on the judgments which the High Court has indeed placed reliance on. The case of the appellant is built around the failure of the respondents to obtain the minimum marks as prescribed by the Commission which, according to the Constitution, it has the power to do. The Commission is tasked with the job of conducting the recruitment of candidates and
