Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the recruitment process for Assistant Engineers (Civil and Mechanical) in the Public Works Department of Karnataka. The State invited applications under the Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1973, which allocated 50 marks for interviews out of a total of 150 marks, constituting 33.3% of the total marks. The appellants, Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and Rajendra, secured 99.46 and 91.23 marks respectively but were not selected as they scored lower than the last selected candidate. They challenged the allocation of marks for interviews as excessive before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed their petitions. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court. The court found that the allocation of 50 marks for interviews was in violation of established legal principles, as candidates with lower qualifying examination marks were selected based on higher interview scores. The court held that if the interview marks were limited to 15% of the total, the appellants would have been selected. However, since the selections were made in 1987 and the selected candidates had already joined, the court did not quash the selections but directed the State to appoint the appellants as Assistant Engineers within two months, provided they met all other criteria. The court restricted relief to the appellants due to their timely approach to the Tribunal, noting that other candidates did not seek redress in a reasonable time. The court also acknowledged that new recruitment rules had been framed by the State, making the old rules obsolete.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Recruitment Rules - Allocation of Marks for Interviews - Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1973, Section Not Mentioned - The allocation of 50 marks for interviews out of a total of 150 marks was found to be excessive and in violation of settled law. The court noted that had the marks for interviews been limited to 15% of the total, the appellants would have been selected, indicating the flawed nature of the selection process. Held that the appellants should be appointed as Assistant Engineers (Paras 494-496).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the allocation of 33.3% marks for interviews in the selection of Assistant Engineers was valid.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the State to appoint the appellants as Assistant Engineers within two months, provided they met all other criteria.
Law Points
- Validity of selection criteria
- Marks allocation for interviews
- Recruitment rules compliance
