Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the selection process for 12 posts of Watchman/Messenger/Attender in Oil Palm India Limited, a government company. The appellant, who had been a worker since 1982, topped a written examination conducted on 18.01.2001 but was not selected. The selection process involved a written test followed by an interview, with 253 applicants and only 197 appearing for the test. The company decided to call 36 candidates for the interview based on their written test scores but later expanded the zone of consideration to include additional candidates, lowering the qualifying marks. The appellant challenged the selection of two candidates who were allegedly appointed without proper eligibility. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, affirming the selection committee's discretion in the process. The appellant contended that the enlargement of the selection zone and the reduction of qualifying marks were arbitrary and violated principles of fair selection. The Supreme Court analyzed the selection process, referencing previous judgments that emphasized adherence to established rules and the need for transparency in selection criteria. The court found that the changes made by the company lacked justification and smacked of arbitrariness, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently, the court set aside the selection of the two candidates and directed the company to appoint the appellant, allowing the appeal with costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Selection Process - Arbitrariness in Selection - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The selection process for the posts was found to be arbitrary as the criteria for selection were altered post-examination without justification, leading to favoritism. The court held that the rules prevailing at the time of vacancy must be adhered to, and the selection of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was set aside, directing the appointment of the appellant. (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the selection process for the posts of Watchman/Messenger/Attender was arbitrary and violated the principles of fair selection.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the selection of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, directing the company to appoint the appellant. The appeal was allowed with costs, and counsel's fee was assessed at Rs. 10,000.
Law Points
- Arbitrariness in selection process
- Allocation of marks for interview
- Eligibility criteria
- Article 14 of the Constitution
- Judicial review of administrative decisions
