An employer can prescribe minimum cut-off marks after a written examination to determine suitability for appointment, as placement in a select list does not grant an indefeasible right to be appointed, provided the decision is non-arbitrary and consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

$~6

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 11.01.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.1215/2017, titled Mohit Kumar Sharma vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors., allowing the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein and directing the petitioners to reconsider the case of the respondent keeping in view the observations judgments of the Supreme Court in its judgments in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another , (2008) 3 SCC 512, and in Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi , (2008) 7 SCC 11.

2. On such consideration, the petitioners rejected the case of the respondent again vide Order dated 20.03.2019.

3. Complaining that the same was not in true compliance with the Order of the learned Tribunal, the respondent filed a contempt petition, being CP No.191/2019. The petitioners again re-considered the case of the respondent, and rejected the same by an Order dated 18.09.2019, which was placed before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, vide Order dated 22.11.2019, found the same to be prima facie in violation of its earlier Order dated 11.01.2019 and proceeded to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioners.

4. It is at this stage that the petitioners filed the present petition challenging the Order dated 11.01.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal in the above O.A. as also the Order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal in the Contempt Petition, that is, CP No.191/2019.

5. To give a brief background of the facts in which the present petition arises, the petitioners issued an online advertisement, on 01.12.2012, inter alia, for the post of ‘Nursing Orderly’ having 24 vacancies (23 for general/unreserved category and 1 for Scheduled Tribes category). As far as the post of Nursing Orderly is concerned, the mode of selection prescribed was only a written test.

6. The petitioners thereafter issued a Corrigendum dated 08.03.2016, to the Advertisement, inter alia, reserving with itself the right to introduce additional stage of examination to be notified at suitable time if considered necessary. In this petition, we are not concerned with this Corrigendum and as far as the selection process is concerned, it continued to remain based only on the written examination which was conducted on 19.03.2016.

7. Before declaration of the result, the petitioners sent a proposal to the Ministry of Labour & Employment for fixing minimum qualifying marks and having received a go ahead, by an Office Memorandum dated 02.01.2017, prescribed the following marks for various categories of the candidates:

8. The result was thereafter, declared by the petitioners on 12.01.2017, in which the respondent secured 48.25 marks out of 125 marks, that is, 38.6% marks, thereby being rendered ineligible for offer of appointment.

9. A total of 7 candidates under the unreserved category were offered appointment for the post of Nursing Orderly, out of 23 General Category vacancies that had been advertised.

10. Aggrieved of the same, the respondent filed the above O.A. before the learned Tribunal, which has taken the path which we have already narrated hereinabove.

11. The limited issue which arises for our considerat