K.VENKATASWAMI - (1.) THE appellants feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Eranakulam Bench dated 28-2-1993 in O. A. No. 21/91 have filed this appeal by special leave. After going through the pleadings and judgment, we find that the issue raised before the Tribunal was no longer res integra but by wrong appreciation and application of law laid down by this Court, the Tribunal has handed down the judgment under challenge obliging the appellants to approach this Court.
(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 were the contestants along with the respondents 3-11 and several others for the promotional post of Assistant Purchase Officer from the post of Purchase Assistant-B. The promotion was based on a written test followed by an interview and assessment of the confidential reports as prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 9-7-1987. The marks prescribed for written test, interview and confidential report were 50, 30 and 20 respectively. It was also prescribed that to qualify for promotion, one should get minimum of 50% prescribed for each head and also 60% in the aggregate. The selection was made on that basis was not in dispute. The grievance of the respondents 1 and 2, who did not find their names in the select list, was that on account of unduly disproportionate marks allotted to interview and confidential report, that enabled the Departmental Promotion Committee to manipulate the results which denied the reasonable expectation of candidates who secured maximum marks in the written test. In other words, according to the respondents 1 and 2, who were the applicants before the Tribunal, though they had secured maximum marks in the written test, by reason of lesser marks awarded to them by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the interview, they were not selected ultimately. In addition to that, respondents 1 and 2 also contended before the Tribunal to challenge the promotion list for the year 1990 that the minimum marks prescribed to qualify for promotion at 50% of the marks allotted for interview and confidential report was also arbitrary and unsustainable. The appellants, who were respondents before the Tribunal, submitted before it that Indian Space Research Organization (hereinafter referred to as ISRO) has to perform a number of tasks and hence it was necessary to choose proper personnel and provide for a proper recruitment system with adequate career growth opportunities in the light of the instructions given in the Office Memorandum. It was also submitted by the appellants that the procedure which was adopted for the promotion in the year 1990 was broadly the same which was in vogue from 1976 onwards except for small modifications brought in by O.Ms. dated 5-6-1982, 31-3-1987 and 9-6-1987. The requirement of 50% minimum marks that was to be secured by any candidate to qualify for promotion both in the interview and the confidential reports was brought into existence subsequently. The appellants brought to the notice of the Tribunal the importance of the interview in selecting Assistant Purchase Officer by stating as follows :- "Written tests may bring out normally the relative theoretical skills of the candidates in the group. Interviews through personal interactions of the candidates with the committee are meant to find out the strength and weaknesses of the total personality and potential of the candidates to hold a particular post which may involve considerable inter personal interactions, too. It provides an opportunity to observe the non-verbal cues like facial expression, mannerism, emotional stability, maturity, attitudes, approach etc. It gives a first hand impression on what a candidate is saying of what he feels to say. Due to its spontaneity it demonstrates the candidate's perceptiveness, clarity of thought analytical ability, aspirations, motivation, interest etc. The behaviour of individual in the personal interviews has a definite bearing on his personality and behavioural attributes at work. But the immediate inference drawn from the above would be more objective and reflect on reality if it is appropriately supported by the ratings in the theoretical knowledge tested through written test and as well as the CR ratings."
(3.) THE Tribunal also directed the production of relevant records relating to the preparation of panel for the years 1988 and 1990. The Tribunal on a consideration of the pleadings and arguments addressed before it found that the argument of the applicants (respondents 1 and 2 herein) that the allocation of 20% of marks for evaluation of ACRs is arbitrary and unreasonable, cannot be accepted.;