Point of Law: An administrative decision does not always require a statutory sanction. For instance, it is well settled that for holding interviews for selection/admissions shortlisting can be done, and it is not necessary that all those who have got marks above the statutory minimum marks must necessarily be called for the interview. In such cases the authorities can impose a non-statutory cut-off minimum marks at their discretion, and as long as there is no discrimination, the Court will not interfere

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. The neat point involved in the present two appeals is with regard to the powers of the Selection Committee to reduce the cut-off marks of different categories of posts at the time of verification of documents and preparation of the final select list.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under:

2.1 A recruitment process was undertaken for selection to the post of Supervisor Instructor, Class-III in different Industrial Training Institutes in the State of Gujarat. Such selection is governed by the Rules known as Supervisor Instructor (Engineering Trade, Non- Engineering Trade), Class-III, Recruitment Rules, 2015.

2.2 An advertisement was issued in 2015 for filling up 1226 vacant posts of Supervisor Instructor (Engineering Trade, Non-Engineering Trade), Class-III. Apart from other conditions mentioned in the advertisement, it was provided that the cut-off marks for General Category would be 60%, for Socially and Educationally Backward Class, it would be 57% and for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, it would be 55%. It was further mentioned that any candidate obtaining less than the cut-off marks would not be eligible for appointment. There were two papers of 150 marks each. Total maximum marks would thus be 300. According to the cut-off percentage mentioned above, the minimum marks to clear the cut-off range would be 180 for General Category, 171 for Socially and Educationally Backward Class and 165 for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Category. The reservation was also to be applied as per the existing rules, both vertical and horizontal.

2.3 There was another advertisement also issued at the same time for filling up 189 vacant posts of Supervisor Instructor (Employability Skill) whereof cut-off marks were the same.

2.4 Thus, in all, selection was to be made for 1415 (1226+189) posts of Supervisor Instructor.

2.5 The written examinations were held in the months of March and April, 2016 and results were declared in September, 2016. The marks were declared of the candidates who had appeared in the examination for some of the branches. Thereafter, candidates were notified to get their documents verified on given dates. The dates were extended from time to time. Different notifications were issued from time to time calling upon the candidates to get their documents verified.

2.6 Some candidates of reserved categories belonging to Female, Physically Handicapped and Ex-servicemen Categories who scored marks less than the cut-off marks made certain representations.

2.7 The Selection Committee vide decision dated 26.12.2016 resolved that the cut-off marks for the General Category to be reduced to 40% whereas for all the reserved categories including female, the cut-off marks were reduced to 35%. Based on the said decision, the result was declared on 27.12.2016 of the selected candidates as also of the candidates in the wait list.

3. Aggrieved by the said decision, two petitions were filed before this Court registered as Special Civil Application No.21988 of 2016 and Special Civil Application No.4708 of 2017. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsels for the parties vide CAV judgment and order dated 14.06.2019 allowed the writ petitions relying upon the following four judgments of the Supreme Court and one Division Bench judgment of this Court by holding that after declaration of result, the Selection Committee had no such power and exercise of such power by the Selection Committee was illegal and accordingly quashed the decision of the Selection Committee to reduce the cut-off marks:-

(i) Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi, 2008(7) SCC 11;

(ii) Union of India and Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors., 2007(8) SCC 100;

(iii) K. Manjusree Vs. State of A.P. and Anr., 2008(3) SCC 512;

(iv) Tamilnadu Computer Science B.Ed. Graduate Teachers Welfare Society Vs. Higher Secondary School Computer Teachers Association and Ors., 2009(14) SCC 517 and

(v) Division Bench judgment of this