The court upheld the constitutionality of a minimum qualifying mark of 35% for interview inclusion, emphasizing adherence to established recruitment rules and the principle of equal treatment in selection processes.

Headnote:(A) Kerala High Court Service (Method of Recruitment) Rules, 2009 - Rule 7 and Rule 16 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Minimum qualification marks - The petitioner contested the constitutionality of a fixed minimum qualifying mark of 35% in the interview for the post of Office Attendant, but did not meet this requirement in his interview; the court upheld the decision as lawful, noting, "the cut-off mark of 35% is fixed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice based on the scheme approved and in tune with Rule 7". (Paras 10, 15, 26)

(B) Administrative Discretion - Selection Process - The court emphasized the legitimacy of setting performance standards for interviews, highlighting that "differently abled persons are interviewed to assess individually whether they are in a position to discharge their duties satisfactorily". (Paras 4, 14)

(C) Equality before Law - The court asserted the principle that "unequals cannot be treated equally" justifying the requirement of a defined minimum standard for all candidates, including those from a reserved category. (Paras 6, 26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, who suffers from moderate mental retardation and participated in the recruitment for Office Attendant post, contested the 35% minimum mark criterion for interview inclusion, due to scoring below that threshold.

Findings of Court:
The court found no illegality in the established selection criteria and upheld the fixed qualifying mark.

Issues: Whether the fixed minimum mark of 35% violates the rights of candidates with intellectual disabilities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the unchanged minimum marks requirement, as previously accepted by the petitioner during the application, is valid and enforceable.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 6th day of February 2024)

An unsuccessful candidate for the post of Office Attendant of this court has filed this Writ petition, challenging the notification prescribing a minimum of 35% marks for qualifying in the interview to be included in the rank list.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner is suffering from moderate mental retardation with intellectual disability of 50% and having IQ of 56. Applications were invited pursuant to Ext.P3 notification to the post of office attendant through direct recruitment. The mode of selection as per the notification is two-fold (i) a written test and (ii) an interview. The total mark from the written test is 100, and for an interview, it is 10. The minimum mark required to be included in the rank list is fixed at 35% in the interview. Under Ext.Nos.P2 and P3, the petitioner applied to the post under the quota reserved for persons with disability. The petitioner attended the written test and became successful. When the provisional list of candidates who are eligible for interview was published as per Ext.P8, 1% of the total vacancies reserved for persons with intellectual disability was not included. Therefore, the petitioner filed Ext.P9 representation before the 1st respondent, and by Ext.P10 addendum notification, a supplementary list of persons with disabilities (mentally disabled and persons with multiple disabilities) was published. The petitioner was included in the said list and was called for an interview. The Petitioner appeared for the interview on 22.3.2022. After the conclusion of the interview, Ext.P12 final rank list was published and the petitioner was not included in the said list. The 3rd respondent alone was included and appointed as per Ext.P18. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the following prayers:

“i. Declare Rule 14 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules as unconstitutional to the extent it fails to include the reservation for Physically Handicapped persons.

ii. Quash Exhibit P3 notification to the extent to the prescription of 35% as the minimum mark for qualifying the interview and to be included in Exhibit P12 ranked list by issuance of writ of certiorari or another appropriate writ, order or direction;

iii. Quash Exhibit P12 ranked list to the extent to which it includes Sri Sarath S.S. and excludes the petitioner in the supplementary list of "Mentally Disabled and Persons with Multiple Disabilities" by issuance of writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction;

iii.a. Quash Exhibit P18 appointment order dated 03.01.2023 by the issuance of the writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the extent to which it wrongfully includes the 3rd respondent and excludes the petitioner herein;

iv. Declare that the petitioner is fully eligible to be included in Exhibit P12 ranked list at the appropriate rank to be assigned on the basis of combined marks in the written test and the interview;

v. Direct the 2nd respondent to redraw Exhibit P12 ranked list with respect to the Supplementary list of "Mentally Disabled and Persons with Multiple Disability" on the basis of the combined marks in the written test and the interview, by issuance of writ of mandamus, or other writ, order or direction;

vi. Declare that there should be relaxed standard for selection of candidates belonging to the "Intellectually Disabled" category.

vii. Such other reliefs that the Honourable Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case;”

3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, denying the averments in the Writ Petition. It is averred that in the notification, clause 8 states explicitly that selection will be based on the marks of the written test and, 10 marks is fixed for the interview and the minimum mark required to be included in the rank list will be 35% in the interview. The petitioner became successful in the written test,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2039

The court upheld the constitutionality of a minimum qualifying mark of 35% for interview inclusion, emphasizing adherence to established recruitment rules and the principle of equal treatment in selection processes.

Cases Referred (9)