Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the selection process for the post of Police Patil in village Ambe, Dindori Taluk, Nasik District. On July 27, 1992, applications were invited, and five persons applied. The appellant was selected and appointed as Police Patil. Respondent No.1 challenged the appointment before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the appellant's appointment, observing that 50% marks were reserved for written examination and 50% for viva-voce, and held that prescribing 50% marks for viva-voce was arbitrary as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal further directed that respondent No.1 be appointed in place of the appellant. The appellant then preferred an appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the Tribunal's direction to appoint respondent No.1 was legally permissible once the selection criterion was found arbitrary. The appellant's counsel contended that even assuming the 50% viva-voce marks were invalid, the appropriate course was to direct official respondents to prescribe lesser marks for viva-voce and higher marks for written examination, and to conduct examinations afresh for all candidates who had applied, considering their cases according to law. The Supreme Court found force in this contention. It held that the Tribunal erred in directing the appointment of respondent No.1, who was not selected by the appointing authority. Under an interim direction, the appellant was continuing in service until a candidate was duly selected and appointed. The Court set aside the Tribunal's direction to appoint respondent No.1 and instead directed the official respondents to conduct written examination and viva-voce test allocating 85% and 15% of marks respectively, and to consider the cases of all candidates who appeared at the initial examination and make selection according to rules. The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Selection Criteria - Viva-Voce Weightage - No specific statute cited - Tribunal held 50% marks for viva-voce arbitrary; Supreme Court accepted this but emphasized proper remedy is fresh selection with rational allocation, not direct appointment. Held that allocation of 85% marks for written examination and 15% for viva-voce is appropriate (Paras 1-2). B) Service Law - Judicial Review - Tribunal's Power to Direct Appointment - No specific statute cited - Tribunal cannot direct appointment of a candidate not selected by the appointing authority; it should direct the competent authority to conduct fresh selection according to law. Held that when selection criteria are invalid, the official respondents must conduct written examination and viva-voce with revised marks and consider all initial candidates (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether prescription of 50% marks for viva-voce in selection for the post of Police Patil was arbitrary and, if so, whether the Tribunal ought to direct fresh selection rather than appoint the unsuccessful candidate.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Tribunal's direction to appoint respondent no.1 set aside. Official respondents directed to conduct written examination and viva-voce test allocating 85% and 15% marks respectively and consider all candidates who appeared at initial examination and make selection according to rules. No costs.
Law Points
- Prescription of 50% marks for viva-voce in public employment selection is arbitrary
- appropriate remedy is fresh selection with rational allocation of marks
- not direct appointment of unsuccessful candidate
- written examination should carry higher weightage
- 85% written and 15% viva-voce is an acceptable allocation
- all candidates who appeared in initial examination should be considered
