Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from recruitment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service, notified by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in 1992. The applicant, belonging to Backward Class Group D and a local candidate of Zone V, applied for the post. The prescribed qualification was a degree in Mechanical Engineering or Automobile Engineering from an Indian university or an equivalent qualification. The applicant possessed a Master of Sciences in Engineering degree awarded by the State Commission of USSR. The selection process involved a written test followed by an oral test, with final selection based on marks obtained in the oral test. The applicant appeared in the written test and was shortlisted. By memo dated January 27, 1994, he was asked to present his certificates on February 13, 1994, and the oral test was scheduled for February 14, 1994. His name appeared at serial No. 3. When his turn was called, he was asked to wait because his eligibility was under consideration due to doubts about the equivalence of his foreign degree. He was interviewed after all other candidates had been interviewed. His name was not included in the final selected list. He filed Original Application No. 1621 of 1994 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. On April 12, 1994, the Tribunal passed an interim direction to treat the applicant as eligible and include him in the ranking list according to his marks, and if he came within the selected list, to send a revised list to the Government and appointing authority. The Commission informed the Tribunal that clarification about equivalence of the applicant's degree was sought from Osmania University, whose Registrar replied that the degree was not recognized, and the matter was referred to the Association of Indian Universities. The Commission also stated that the applicant had secured 63 marks whereas the last selected candidate belonging to Backward Class Group D from Zone V, both local and non-local, had secured 65 marks, so the applicant was not within the zone of consideration. The Tribunal, by judgment dated April 4, 1996, referred to a Government of India communication dated June 27, 1967 recognizing certain USSR degrees, observed that the Commission should have known the equivalence, and that the objection was raised for the first time at the interview stage, which showed unfair treatment. The Tribunal held that the applicant was not given fair treatment and his merit was not assessed objectively, and directed his appointment as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in an existing or next vacancy. The Commission and the Government of Andhra Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a fair and objective assessment of merit is based on performance at the oral test, and there was nothing on record to show that the applicant's performance was adversely affected by being told about the doubt regarding his eligibility. The Court found the Tribunal's observation that the applicant could have secured very high marks if interviewed in his turn to be mere speculation without basis. The Court further noted that even if the degree were recognized as equivalent, the applicant was not within the zone of consideration because of lower marks. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Tribunal's judgment dated April 4, 1996 passed in O.A. No. 1621 of 1994, and dismissed the original application. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Public Employment - Fair and Objective Selection - Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission - The applicant was interviewed after other candidates due to doubt about equivalence of his foreign degree; the Tribunal held this denied fair treatment and directed appointment. The Supreme Court held that postponement of interview alone does not amount to denial of fair and objective assessment of merit; there was no evidence that performance was adversely affected, and speculation about potential higher marks is not a valid basis for judicial interference (Paras not mentioned). B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Tribunal's Jurisdiction - Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal - The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by directing appointment when the candidate had scored 63 marks and the cut-off for selection was 65 marks for local and non-local Backward Class Group D candidates from Zone V; even if his degree were recognized as equivalent, he would not be within the zone of consideration. Held that the Tribunal's direction was erroneous and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and dismissing the original application (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal erred in holding that the applicant was denied fair and objective assessment of merit in the oral test because his interview was postponed due to doubts about the equivalence of his foreign degree, and whether the direction to appoint the applicant was legally sustainable when he had scored below the cut-off marks.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; judgment of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated April 4, 1996 in O.A. No. 1621 of 1994 set aside; Original Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Fair and objective assessment of merit is based on performance at oral test
- mere postponement of interview due to eligibility doubts does not amount to denial of fair assessment
- speculation about potential higher marks has no basis in judicial review
- candidate scoring below cut-off marks is not entitled to appointment
- equivalence of foreign degree not sufficient to override zone of consideration
