IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that adherence to selection procedures is crucial, but minor deviations do not invalidate the process if they do not affect the outcome.

JUDGMENT :

(G. Narendar, J.) :

1. Heard Sri. Mattegunta Sudhir, the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Advocate General for the official respondents and Sri. Narra Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents.

2. In all the three Writ Appeals, the controversy centres on the selection of Anganwadi Workers to the position of the Extension Officers, Grade-II.

3. The short question that was canvassed before the learned Single Judge is that the official respondent No.3, who conducted the proceedings for selection of the Extension Officers, Grade-II has omitted to comply with the notification dated 05.09.2022. Under the said notification, as per the Paragraph No.7, the total marks for selection was fixed as 50 and out of the said total, 45 marks was assigned for the objective test and 05 marks for proficiency test i.e., proficiency in spoken English.

4. The respondent No.3 instead of conducting the proficiency test in spoken English for all the candidates, has acted arbitrarily and restricted the same to a limited number and has not conducted any proficiency test for the petitioners. That the same being contrary to the notified selection process, the selection process stands vitiated and warrants interference at the hands of the Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants would take us through the notification dated 05.09.2022 and the procedure set out therein for recruitment of Extension Officers, Grade-II. There is no dispute with regard to the qualification and eligibility of both the petitioners and the private respondents to participate in the process. The eligibility criteria and the scheme of examination and the centers have been notified separately. Under the said notification, dated 05.09.2022, the process of selection has been stipulated as under;

Procedure of Selection:

“The selection of candidates for appointment to the posts will be made by OMR based (objective type) examination and Spoken English Proficiency. The final selection for these posts will be based on marks secured in the examination.”

6. The process of evaluating the proficiency of the candidate is found in paragraph No.2 of the notification, which reads as under:

“2. The Department will conduct offline OMR based objective type examination, Spoken English Videos of merit list candidates will be examined.”

7. Thus, even as per the notification, the selection authority has clearly notified that only the videos of the candidates in the merit list would be examined.

8. Apparently, different cut-off marks have been adopted based on the merit list, for different categories of candidates. The respondent No.2-The Director of Women Development and Child Welfare Department in his affidavit has set out the tabular charts showing the cut off marks in final selection. The below tables are in respective the three Writ Appeals respectively, which reads as follows:

9. As contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, the candidates who have been selected i.e., the private respondents herein, are all candidates who have secured higher marks than the petitioners (in their respective categories) in the written test, and t