Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the selection process for 50 Managing Directors to be empanelled by the respondents, regulated by Government Resolution dated 18.04.2022. The petitioners, aspirants from the open market, challenged the introduction of a minimum qualifying mark of 27 out of 75 in the written/mains examination by a circular dated 17.04.2023, issued after the objective screening test had been conducted. The petitioners argued that this amounted to a change of rules in the midst of the selection process, as the original criterion was to shortlist candidates for interview in the ratio of 1:3 based on merit in the written/mains. They also contended that the non-disclosure of marks in the mains examination was arbitrary and non-transparent. The respondents argued that the benchmark was permissible to select the best candidates and that the petitioners, having participated in the process, were estopped from challenging it. The court, relying on the principle laid down in Tejprakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, held that fixation of minimum marks must be done before the commencement of the selection process. The circular dated 17.04.2023 was found to be arbitrary and without authority, as it deviated from the Government Resolution and was not issued by the competent authority. The court also held that the non-disclosure of marks was arbitrary. Consequently, the court quashed the circular dated 17.04.2023 and directed the respondents to declare the marks of all candidates who appeared in the written/mains examination and to proceed with the selection process in accordance with the original Government Resolution dated 18.04.2022, without applying the minimum qualifying mark of 27 out of 75.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Selection Process - Change of Rules Mid-Process - Government Resolution dated 18.04.2022 - Circular dated 17.04.2023 - The introduction of a minimum qualifying mark of 27 out of 75 in the written/mains examination after the objective screening test had been conducted amounts to an impermissible change of rules in the midst of the selection process. The court held that the circular was arbitrary and without authority, as it deviated from the criterion of 1:3 ratio for shortlisting candidates for interview. (Paras 6-10, 16-20) B) Service Law - Selection Process - Fixation of Minimum Marks - Tejprakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court - The principle that fixation of minimum marks must be done before the commencement of the selection process was affirmed. The court held that the respondents had no power to modify the Government Resolution or to issue the circular dated 17.04.2023 imposing a new benchmark. (Paras 12, 16-20) C) Service Law - Selection Process - Non-Disclosure of Marks - The non-disclosure of marks in the written/mains examination was held to be arbitrary and non-transparent, depriving the petitioners of the opportunity to challenge their marks. The court directed the respondents to declare the marks of all candidates who appeared in the written/mains examination. (Paras 11, 21-22) D) Service Law - Selection Process - Estoppel - The court held that the petitioners are not estopped from challenging the validity of the circular merely because they participated in the selection process, as the challenge is to the validity of the rule itself. (Para 14, 20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the introduction of a minimum qualifying mark of 27 out of 75 in the written/mains examination by a circular dated 17.04.2023, after the objective screening test had been conducted, amounts to an impermissible change of rules in the midst of the selection process, and whether the non-disclosure of marks in the mains examination is arbitrary.
Final Decision
The court quashed the circular dated 17.04.2023 imposing minimum qualifying marks of 27 out of 75 in the written/mains examination. It directed the respondents to declare the marks of all candidates who appeared in the written/mains examination and to proceed with the selection process in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 18.04.2022, without applying the minimum qualifying mark of 27 out of 75.
Law Points
- Change of rules mid-selection process is impermissible
- Fixation of minimum qualifying marks must be done before commencement of selection process
- Estoppel does not apply when challenge is to validity of rule
- Non-disclosure of marks is arbitrary
- Government Resolution cannot be modified by circular without authority
