Back
2002 Supreme(Gau) 65
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
P.G.Agarwal, J.
Lishi Lel -Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh -Respondent
W.P(C) No. 34(AP) of 2002
Decided On : 05-02-2002
D.Belo, L.Sera, C.Barua, Tony Pertin
The rule of natural justice does not apply to a competitive examination, and the examining authority has the authority to adopt cut-off marks confidentially without informing the candidates.
Headnote:
Qualifying Marks - Selection Process - The court dismissed the petitioner's plea for a direction to allow him to appear in the viva voce test for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) as the Commission had the authority to adopt cut-off marks confidentially and was not required to inform the candidates about such marks. The court held that the rule of natural justice does not apply to a competitive examination.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) but did not qualify in the written test and was not called for the viva voce test. The petitioner filed a plea for a direction to allow him to appear in the viva voce test.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petitioner's plea, stating that the Commission had the authority to adopt cut-off marks confidentially and was not required to inform the candidates about such marks. The court relied on the proposition of law established by the Apex Court regarding the rule of natural justice not applying to a competitive examination.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be allowed to appear in the viva voce test despite not qualifying in the written test, based on the absence of communicated qualifying marks.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the proposition of law established by the Apex Court, which stated that the rule of natural justice does not apply to a competitive examination, and that the Commission had the authority to adopt cut-off marks confidentially without informing the candidates.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.
Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the Amnachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and also the learned Govt. Advocate.
2. The petitioner Sri Lishi Lei had participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) conducted by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, for short, the Commission as per the advertisement issued; both written test and viva voce test were to be conducted after final selection. Petitioner appeared in the written test but as he did not qualify he was not called for the viva voce test. Petitioner has therefore filed the present application for a direction to the respondent Commission to allow him to appear in the viva voce test.
3. The plea raised by the petitioner is that the final selection is to be made on the basis of written examination and viva voce test and as no qualifying marks were laid down and communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be thrown out from the purview of selection on the basis of the written test only.
4. The respondent Commission has filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating inter-alia that this being the competitive examination for filling up 15 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), the total number of candidates selected for viva voce was 48. It was further averred as follows :-"The commission adopts a cut-off marks confidentially depending on the number of candidates and vacancies and the ratio to be maintained. It is unjustified to expect the commission to call the entire candidates who has appeared in the written test for the viva-voce." 5. So far the plea of the petitioner for laying down any qualifying marks or for informing the candidate about such marks was considered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.R vs. Rafiquddin and others, reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 401 and the Apex Court observed :
"The Division Bench of the High Court observed that the Commission had no authority to fix any minimum marks for the viva-voce test and even if it had such a power it could not prescribe the minimum marks without giving notice to the candidates. The Bench further observed that if the Commission had given notice to the candidates before the steps for holding the competitive examination were taken the candidates may or may not have appeared at the examination. In our opinion the High Court committed a serious error in applying the principles of natural justice to a competitive examination. There is a basic difference between an examination held by a College or University or Examining Body to award degree to candidates appearing at the examination and a competitive examination. The Examining Body or the authority prescribes minimum pass marks. If a person obtains the minimum marks as prescribed by the authority he is declared successful and placed in the respective grade according to the number of marks obtained by him. In such a case it would be obligatory on the examining authority to prescribe marks for passing the examination as well as for securing different grade well in advance. A competitive examination on the other hand is of different character. The purpose and object of the competitive examination is to select most suitable candidates for appointment to public services. A person may obtain sufficiently high marks and yet he may not be selected on account of the limited number of posts and availability of persons of higher quality. Having regard to the nature and characteristics of a competitive examination it is not possible nor necessary to give notice to the candidates about the minimum marks which the Commission may determine for purposes of eliminating the unsuitable candidates. The rule of natural justice does not apply to a competitive examination."
6. In view of the said proposition of law, the petitioner having failed in the written examination, the Commission may not call him in the viva voce test and he is not entitled to any relief in this w
