The selecting body has the authority to determine the method/criterion of selection, and the rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has started.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Awadh Narain Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Public Service Commission, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents and perused the record.

2. The petitioners before this Court have been applicants for the post of Medical Officer, Community Health Centre (Ayurvedic & Unani) in Other Backward Caste (for short 'OBC') and Scheduled Castes (for short 'SC') categories respectively, pursuant to the advertisement issued by Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission'). While they qualified amongst 1058 candidates to be screened out for the next stage, they were asked to submit offline application annexing therewith their requisite documents of eligibility for verification. After due verification, when call letters were issued by the Commission for interview, their names did not figure in that list, which consisted of 182 candidates in OBC category and 87 candidates in SC category respectively.

3. The challenge has been made to the act and conduct of the Commission on the ground that once screening test was held as per Claus-7 of the advertisement, in terms of Claus-14, that prescribes for minimum qualification marks for different categories of the candidates, in all 132 candidates had applied and petitioners were found to be eligible on the basis of verification of their documents, they could not have been denied participation in the interview. It is submitted, therefore, that adopting any other yardstick except the bench mark prescribed for under Claus-14 of the advertisement, the Commission was not justified in discriminating against petitioners in the matter of interview so as to deny participation to petitioners in the final selection process. It is thus, submitted that in spite of what has been given under the advertisement for the purposes of holding selection against the posts advertised, the Commission has changed the procedure prescribed for and has thus wrongly and in other words wholly illegally denied participation of the petitioners in the interview selection process. The procedure, having been thus adopted, being de hors the procedure prescribed was vitiated and petitioners, therefore, deserve to be allowed to participate in the interview process.

4. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate Sri G.K. Singh, appearing on behalf of Commission argued before the Court that while in terms of Claus-14 of the advertisement the minimum percentage of marks prescribed for, was to be attained by a candidate to become eligible for the next stage to apply for offline application form for the purposes of verification of the documents, the Commission under the relevant rules read with relevant service rules was well, acted well within its discretion to call for requisite number of candidates for the purposes of interview as per the resolution adopted by it. The resolution according to him, prescribes that for the purpose of documents verification, candidates would be called in a ratio of 1:8, whereas for the purpose of final interview, candidates would be called in a ratio of 1:3 in terms of the posts advertised. This Court had, for this purpose, earlier summoned the original minutes of the resolution as the copy annexed with the counter affidavit was quite blurred and it appeared that some cutting was done thereon.

5. The original minutes register of the Commission has been placed before the Court and from perusal thereof, it clearly transpires that the Board earlier in respect of one examination adopted the resolution dated 31.12.2012, which provides that for the purposes of document verification, the candidates would be called in a ratio of 1:8 but at the time of interview, they will be called in a ratio of 1:3 as against the posts advertised. This resolution does not bear any cutting as to ratio prescribed for. It transpires that the Commission ha