Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals Challenging Non-Selection for Deputy Director (Law) Post — No Change in Selection Criteria Established. The fixation of benchmark marks for selection was within the employer's prerogative and did not constitute a change in the selection criteria.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from the non-selection of candidates for the post of Deputy Director (Law) in the Other Backward Class (OBC) category by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). The appellants, who had qualified the written test and attended the interview, challenged their non-selection on the grounds that the selection criteria had been altered mid-way through the recruitment process. The CCI had issued a notification inviting applications for the post, specifying the selection process, which included a written test and an interview. The appellants claimed that the introduction of benchmark marks for selection after the initiation of the recruitment process was arbitrary and illegal. The High Court dismissed their writ petitions, stating that the fixation of benchmark marks was a legitimate exercise of discretion by the CCI. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the selection criteria had not changed and that the fixation of benchmark marks was permissible to ensure the selection of meritorious candidates. The court referenced previous judgments to support its reasoning, concluding that the appeals were without merit and dismissing them.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Recruitment Process - Change in Selection Criteria - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151 - The appellants contended that the fixation of benchmark marks for selection after the recruitment process had commenced was impermissible. The court held that the fixation of benchmark marks did not constitute a change in the selection criteria as it was within the prerogative of the employer to set standards for selection (Paras 12-17).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether there was a change in the mode of selection after the recruitment process had started.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision that the fixation of benchmark marks did not change the selection criteria and was permissible under the law.

Law Points

  • Selection criteria
  • benchmark fixation
  • recruitment process
  • transparency in selection
  • eligibility criteria
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (SC) (08) 24

Civil Appeal No.6799/2013

2013-08-16

A.K. Sikri, Anil R. Dave

Yogesh Yadav

Union of India & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to non-selection for a government post based on alleged changes in selection criteria.

Remedy Sought

The appellants sought to be selected for the post of Deputy Director (Law).

Filing Reason

The appellants filed the case claiming that the selection criteria were changed after the recruitment process had begun.

Previous Decisions

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants, upholding the CCI's actions.

Issues

Whether the fixation of benchmark marks constituted a change in the selection criteria. Whether the CCI acted within its prerogative in setting benchmark marks for selection.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellants argued that the introduction of benchmark marks after the recruitment process began was arbitrary and illegal. The respondents contended that the fixation of benchmark marks was a legitimate exercise of discretion to ensure the selection of meritorious candidates.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the fixation of benchmark marks for selection was within the employer's prerogative and did not constitute a change in the selection criteria, as the selection process was conducted according to the criteria laid out in the advertisement.

Judgment Excerpts

The issue which needs to be decided is as to whether there was any change in the mode of selection after the process of selection had started. The fixation of benchmark marks did not constitute a change in the selection criteria as it was within the prerogative of the employer to set standards for selection. The intention of the CCI was to get more meritorious candidates.

Procedural History

The appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging their non-selection, which were dismissed. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 151
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Remands Property Dispute for Fresh Inquiry — Ensures Fair Hearing for All Parties. The court emphasized the necessity of a detailed inquiry into the claims of both parties regarding property identity and title.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging All-India Quota Counselling Procedures — No Third Round of Counselling Permitted. Citing the need for adherence to established admission schemes and the principle of broad equality in medical educat...