Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Annasaheb Shende, a Civil Engineer with B.Tech qualification, was initially appointed as an Engineer on a contractual basis by Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in 2018. His contract was extended periodically until 2022. In 2022, TISS issued an advertisement for various regular posts, including one post of Assistant Engineer (Group-B Level-7). The advertisement specified a selection process comprising a Written Test of 100 marks (50% weightage) and a Skill Test/Interaction of 50 marks (50% weightage). The petitioner applied and appeared for the Written Test, securing 72 marks out of 100. However, instead of conducting a Skill Test, the Institute conducted an Interview. The petitioner scored only 18 marks out of 50 in the Interview, and the Institute declared that no candidate was found suitable for the post. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the substitution of the Skill Test with an Interview and seeking appointment. The Court framed the issue of whether the Institute could substitute the advertised Skill Test with an Interview. The petitioner argued that the substitution was arbitrary and contrary to the advertised procedure, while the Institute contended that the terms 'Skill Test' and 'Interview' were used interchangeably and that the Interview was a valid mode of assessment. The Court analyzed the advertisement and found that the selection process clearly prescribed a Skill Test/Interaction, which implied a practical test of skills, not a mere Interview. The Court held that the substitution of the Skill Test with an Interview was impermissible and vitiated the entire selection process. The Court quashed the selection process and directed the Institute to conduct a fresh selection process strictly in accordance with the advertised procedure. The Court also directed that the petitioner's contractual engagement be continued until the fresh selection process is completed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Selection Process - Adherence to Advertised Procedure - Substitution of Skill Test with Interview - The respondent-Institute advertised a selection process comprising a Written Test (100 marks, 50% weightage) and a Skill Test/Interaction (50 marks). Instead of conducting a Skill Test, the Institute conducted an Interview. The Court held that the substitution of the Skill Test with an Interview was impermissible and vitiated the selection process. The Court quashed the selection process and directed the Institute to conduct a fresh selection process strictly in accordance with the advertised procedure. (Paras 1-15) B) Service Law - Selection Process - Non-filling of Posts - The selection process resulted in no candidate being found suitable for the post of Assistant Engineer. The Court noted that the petitioner had secured substantially higher marks in the Written Test but was declared 'not selected' due to lesser marks in the Interview. The Court directed the Institute to conduct a fresh selection process. (Paras 2-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent-Institute could substitute the advertised Skill Test with an Interview and whether the selection process was vitiated by such substitution.
Final Decision
The Court quashed the selection process for the post of Assistant Engineer and directed the respondent-Institute to conduct a fresh selection process strictly in accordance with the advertised procedure. The Court also directed that the petitioner's contractual engagement be continued until the fresh selection process is completed.
Law Points
- Selection process must strictly adhere to advertised procedure
- Substitution of Skill Test with Interview is impermissible
- Quashing of selection process and direction for fresh selection
