Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SONIA GOKANI, SANGEETA K. VISHEN, JJ.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Sureshbhai Mayarambhai Danidhar – Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1433 of 2019 In R/Special Civil Application No. 25697 of 2006
Decided On : 08-02-2023
ASSISTANT SANITARY SUB-INSPECTOR - SELECTION PROCESS - CHANGE OF NORMS - VALIDITY - BOMBAY PROVINCIAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 24(1) - RULES 16, 17, 18 AND 19 - K. MANJUSREE VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER, (2008) 3 SCC 512 - TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK AND OTHERS VS. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS, (2013) 4 SCC 540 - GOA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. PANKAJ RANE & OTHERS [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2779/2022, DECIDED ON 06.04.2022] - HELD, THE STAFF SELECTION COMMITTEE CANNOT CHANGE THE NORMS AFTER THE SELECTION PROCESS IS COMPLETED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant - Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 09.04.2019 allowing Special Civil Application No. 25697 of 2006 whereby, it has directed the appellant to appoint respondent to the post of Assistant Sanitary Sub-Inspector with effect from the date on which the candidate at serial no. 16 was appointed, with backwages and seniority. The respondent - corporation issued advertisement on 14.06.2006 inviting the applications for filling up the posts of Assistant Sanitary Sub-Inspector on a fixed pay of Rs. 2,500/-. Out of 53 posts, 11 were reserved for Scheduled Tribes, 40 for Socially and Educationally Backward Class and 02 were unreserved. The advertisement required the candidate to tender certain testimonials in the nature of (i) a duly authorized cast certificate; and (ii) the certified copies of educational qualification, age and experience. The respondent was belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Class with degree of B.Com. with 42% and has passed the Sanitary Inspector Diploma Examination in second attempt by securing 58% marks. The respondent appeared in selection process and the Staff Selection Committee had been constituted by the appellant - Corporation as per the provision of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 which prepared the merit list on the strength of the preferences given to the different examinations given by the candidates. Out of 100 marks, 10 marks were fixed for SSC Examination, 60% marks were prescribed for Sanitary Inspector Diploma, 20% for HSC and 10% marks for Science Graduates. It was decided to deduct 02 marks per trial with respect to each examination. The norms were changed on the ground of administrative inconvenience where it was decided that in the event of more than one trial in any of the qualified examination, the marks would be treated as 35% marks. The two lists were prepared as the Select List and the Wait List. The respondent’s name appeared at serial no. 16 with the merit at 56.95 marks. It is the case of the respondent that the procedure adopted by the Corporation of assigning 35% marks to the candidates who have qualified in examination in more than one trials, is adopted by the selection committee after the merit list was prepared, where in fact, the advertisement did not provide any such condition nor had invited any candidate to supply all the mark-sheets of earlier examination. The procedure adopted by the selection committee is alleged to be illegal and unjustifiable. He, therefore, has insisted on appointment of the respondent on the post of Assistant Sanitary Sub-Inspector where he fairly agreed that he would not claim any backwages.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Staff Selection Committee cannot change the norms after the selection process is completed. The Court also held that the norms fixed by the Staff Selection Committee were the only guiding criteria for the Staff Selection Committee and that the candidates were made known of these norms and accordingly, they have progressed in the selection process. The Court further held that the norms cannot be changed at the time when the testimonials of the candidates are examined.
Issues: Whether the Staff Selection Committee can change the norms after the selection process is completed.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Staff Selection Committee cannot change the norms after the selection process is completed. The Court also held that the norms fixed by the Staff Selection Committee were the only guiding criteria for the Staff Selection Committee and that the candidates were made known of these norms and accordingly, they have progressed in the selection process. The Court further held that the norms cannot be changed at the time when the testimonials of the candidates are examined.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant - Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
JUDGMENT :
(Sonia Gokani, J.)
1. The appellant – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is before this Court seeking to challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 09.04.2019 allowing Special Civil Application No. 25697 of 2006 whereby, it has directed the appellant to appoint respondent to the post of Assistant Sanitary Sub-Inspector with effect from the date on which the candidate at serial no. 16 was appointed, with backwages and seniority. This has been challenged on the ground that the order is erroneous and arbitrary as well as against the settled position of law.
2. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of adjudication are as follows:-
2.1. The respondent – original petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 25697 of 2006 seeking the direction against the appellant to appoint the petitioner with effect from the date on which the candidate at serial no. 16 is appointed with all consequential benefits.
2.2. The respondent – corporation issued advertisement on 14.06.2006 inviting the applications for filling up the posts of Assistant Sanitary Sub-Inspector on a fixed pay of Rs. 2,500/-. Out of 53 posts, 11 were reserved for Scheduled Tribes, 40 for Socially and Educationally Backward Class and 02 were unreserved. The advertisement required the candidate to tender certain testimonials in the nature of (i) a duly authorized cast certificate; and (ii) the certified copies of educational qualification, age and experience.
2.3. The respondent was belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Class with degree of B.Com. with 42% and has passed the Sanitary Inspector Diploma Examination in second attempt by securing 58% marks. The respondent appeared in selection process and the Staff Selection Committee had been constituted by the appellant – Corporation as per the provision of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 which prepared the merit list on the strength of the preferences given to the different examinations given by the candidates. Out of 100 marks, 10 marks were fixed for SSC Examination, 60% marks were prescribed for Sanitary Inspector Diploma, 20% for HSC and 10% marks for Science Graduates. It was decided to deduct 02 marks per trial with respect to each examination.
2.4. The norms were changed on the ground of administrative inconvenience where it was decided that in the event of more than one trial in any of the qualified examination, the marks would be treated as 35% marks. The two lists were prepared as the Select List and the Wait List. The respondent’s name appeared at serial no. 16 with the merit at 56.95 marks. It is the case of the respondent that the procedure adopted by the Corporation of assigning 35% marks to the candidates who have qualified in examination in more than one trials, is adopted by the selection committee after the merit list was prepared, where in fact, the advertisement did not provide any such condition nor had invited any candidate to supply all the mark-sheets of earlier examination. The procedure adopted by the selection committee is alleged to be illegal and unjustifiable. He, therefore, has insisted on appointment of the respondent on the post of Assistant Sanitary Sub-Inspector where he fairly agreed that he would not claim any backwages.
2.5. It is the case of the appellant – corporation that as per the norms prescribed by the selection committee, the qualifying marks of the respondent would be considered as 35% marks only since he passed examination of Sanitary Inspector Diploma in the second attempt. Since the respondent did not furnish the attempt certificate in respect of examination, he was placed at serial no. 56 in the merit list. He was required to inform that he had cleared the examination in the second attempt. The Staff Selection Committee has rightly chosen to place him at serial no. 56 instead of 16 in the merit list in absence of any requisite information at initial stage.
3. A
The Commission cannot prescribe additional requirements for selection beyond the Rules.
Retrospective fixation of minimum qualifying marks after exam result declaration changes rules of game impermissibly; candidates in initial combined merit list entitled to consideration without such ....
(1) Appointment of District Judges – “No change in the rule midway” dictum has become an integral part of service jurisprudence – If precluding a candidate from appointment is in violation of recruit....
Minimum qualifying marks must be obtained in each subject rather than an aggregate score; changes to recruitment criteria cannot be made after the process has commenced.
Eligibility criteria for recruitment cannot be altered after the process has commenced, ensuring fairness and adherence to constitutional principles.
Recruitment criteria cannot be altered after the selection process begins, as it violates principles of fairness and predictability under public service law.
Public Service Commission - Civil service Examination - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms
The court clarified that subject-wise qualifying marks cannot be enforced post-examination as it contradicts the established selection rules, emphasizing the necessity for procedural clarity and comp....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
