IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a selection process based solely on interview performance may lead to arbitrariness and lack of transparency, and the purpose of any qualifying tests should be clearly communicated to the candidates.

JUDGMENT :

(Umesh A. Trivedi, J.)

1. The petitioners, by way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenged an order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for the sake of convenience) dated 3rd February, 2017, whereby Original Application no.267 of 2013 came to be allowed with direction to the petitioners that if recommended candidate Shri More Rajesh Sudhakar (deceased) was appointed and pursuant to the same, had he reported for duty, then the respondents (present petitioners), on appointing the applicant to the post of Catering Supervisor shall fix his pay notionally with effect the date on which Shri More Rajesh Sudhakar reported for duty, but with no arrears of pay.

2. Brief facts of the case are here as under :

2.1 The respondent was a candidate for the post of Catering Supervisor pursuant to the Advertisement No.SAC:02/2012. According to the case of the respondent, he possessed all the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement. Therefore, he was permitted to participate in the written examination and he was successful and declared qualified for interview. According to him, he attended the interview and performed well and anxiously waiting that he would be selected and appointed to the post of Catering Supervisor pursuant to the said advertisement.

2.2 Since the applicant did not get any information as to his selection, he sought for certain information to know about the status of the selection process, by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2.3 It is the case of the respondent that by communication dated 1st May, 2013, he was informed that his name was shown at Sr. no.2 at waiting list. Through the information furnished, the respondent learnt that a candidate who secured lower marks, both in the written examination and the total marks (in the written examination and interview), than him was selected. Therefore, he preferred representation dated 13th May, 2013, which was responded by the respondents through communication dated 24th July, 2013 whereby, it was informed that the written test held on 18th January, 2013 for the post of Catering Supervisor was of qualifying in nature only and the selection was based on the performance in the interview by those candidates, who qualified in the written test held for the purpose. Therefore, he had preferred the aforesaid original application before the Tribunal.

2.4 After hearing the parties and examining the material placed before it, the Tribunal allowed the original application, which led petitioners to prefer the present petition.

3. Heard Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioners as also Mr. Anand Sharma, learned advocate for the respondent.

4. Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that selection list prepared by the authority on the basis of performance in the interview as written examination conducted of all the candidates was in the nature of shortlisting of the candidates to be called for personal interview. He has further submitted that the only criteria for selection of the candidate was based upon the performance in the interview and not the written examination. According to his submission, the written examination was, as replied by the petitioners to the respondent pursuant to his representation, was qualifying in nature to shortlist the candidates for the purpose of interview. He has further submitted that in exercise of the powers vested with the Directors of the ISRO Centres, Space Application Center (ISRO), Ahmedabad had issued an advertisement in question dated 25th August, 2012 in inviting online applications for Group-B posts (Technical Assistant, Library Assistant and Catering Supervisor), in which post Code no.3 was for fillingup one post of Catering Supervisor reserved for OBC in the Pay Band-2 of Rs.9300-34800 + Grade pay of Rs.4200/-. Drawing attention of the Court