IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of a fair and transparent selection process, the need for objective criteria in assessments, and the application of reservation policies in appointments.

JUDGMENT

Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The appeal has been carried against a judgment and order of June 10, 2022 passed on the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. By the order impugned, the appellant's challenge to the selection process adopted by the Directorate of Soil and Water Conservation of the State in course of appointing two drivers has been repelled.

2. The order impugned records that the methodology adopted for the selection process was decided prior to the process being initiated, and as such, there was no change in the rules midstream, so to say. The order impugned notices that the selection process was divided into two parts: a practical driving test and an interview. The Single Bench perceived that the writ petitioner had no quarrel with the practical driving test but was aggrieved only with the manner in which marks were allotted in the interview. The Court observed that it was the settled law that a candidate having taken part in a selection process could not turn around and challenge the same upon being unsuccessful.

3. The primary feature that initially engaged the attention of this appellate court was that the appellant herein had secured the highest mark of 84 in the practical examination which tested the candidates' driving skills. However, some other candidates who barely met the qualifying marks to be called for the interview obtained exceptionally high marks in course of the interview to topple, inter alia, the appellant herein and bag the posts. Two of the private respondents herein were appointed and such appointments were made in or about March, 2021.

4. The methodology adopted for conducting the selection process was that equal weightage would be given to the practical examination on driving skills and an interview would be conducted by seven designated officials. The methodology itself strikes as odd. High authorities now instruct that except in certain special cases, the weightage given to the objective examination should be about 70 or 75 per cent and the weightage given to the subjective assessment in course of an interview or viva-voce should not exceed 30 to 35 per cent. There is good reason for such rule. Oftentimes it had been seen that candidates faring exceeding well in the objective examination obtained low marks in the interview without any indication as to how or why they were found deficient.

5. To ensure that the objective part of the examination carries more weightage and the subjective part cannot completely override the objective assessment, the recent trend of judgments requires the subjective element to be kept to the minimum, depending, of course, on the nature of the job.

6. When it comes to the appointment of a driver, common sense instructs that it is the driving skill which should be the paramount consideration. Here was a candidate who obtained 84 marks out of the allotted 100 in the driving skill test conducted by the employer and one of the private respondents obtained only 70 marks in the same test. The rules of the game, as set out prior to the process being commenced, provided that persons obtaining 70 or more marks in the driving skill test would be called for the subsequent interview. One of the private respondents who was ultimately selected barely scraped through and started with a 14-mark disadvantage as the selection process entered the second stage of the interview.

7. Since the system adopted of allotting equal marks to the objective examination and equal weightage to the interview appeared somewhat dubious, the records were called for. The records reveal that a completely arbitrary and unfair procedure was adopted at the interview unbecoming of any respectable or acceptable selection process.

8. Quite apart from the fact that the rules pertaining to the selection at the outset made it possible for nepotism to rule the day by giving equal weightage to the driving skill test and the subjective assessment at the interview, it is evident that seven membe