(1.) In the instant case, Commission totally ignored the statutory Rules governing the method of selection as prescribed. Rules 15(3) and 15(4) of the applicable Rules are as follows:
"(3) After the results of the written examination have been received and tabulated, the Commission shall, having regard to the need for securing due representation of the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories under Rule 6, summon for interview such number of candidates as, on the result of the written examination have come up to the standard fixed by the Commission in this respect. The marks awarded to each candidate at the interview shall be added to the marks obtained by him in the written examination.
(4) The Commission shall prepare a list of candidates in order of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate of marks obtained by each candidate at the written examination and interview and recommend such number of candidates as they consider fit for appointment. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate the name of the candidate obtaining higher marks in the written examination shall be placed higher in the list. The number of names in the list shall be larger (but not larger by more than 25 per cent) than the number of vacancies. The Commission shall forward the list to the appointing authority."
(2.) The Commission, while holding the written examination, splitted the same up into two; one purely a written examination and the other a practical examination, though no provision for holding a practical examination has been prescribed in the Rules. Be that as it may, written examination and the practical examination having not been objected to by any of the candidates appearing in those examinations, must be deemed to be the composite written examination as mentioned in Rule 15(3) of the Rules. At or before holding the said examinations, the Commission did not fix any standard for calling candidates for interview, again in contravention of Rule 15(3) of the statutory Rules, it called candidates on the basis of 1:3 at inter view, ignoring whatever marks they have received at the examination. After the interviews were held, the Commission set down and fixed a standard for examination. It held out that a person, who has secured 45 % marks in the examination and at the interview, shall be deemed to have achieved the standard. Whoever got 45% marks and above in the examination and in the interview, were treated to have succeeded and, on the basis of such success, a merit list was prepared. In the merit list, only seven candidates found themselves placed. The vacancies were for 10 posts. In the writ petition, it was contended that it must be deemed that the Commission discharged its duties under Rule 15(3) and, accordingly, fixed a standard. Appellant, having crossed that standard, was called for interview. In terms of Rule 15(4), it was contended that the Commission was obliged to add marks obtained in the examination and marks obtained in the interview and, thereupon, was entitled to recommend such number of candidates as the Commission considered fit for appointment. It was contended that, in the advertisement, it was indicated that the Commission, while shall be entitled to fix cut off marks for the written examination, it shall also be entitled to fix cut off marks for the interview. It was contended that the Commission, having desired 45 percent marks as the cut off marks for the interview, it was obligatory on the part of the Commission to bring on the merit list all those persons, who secured 45 per cent marks in the interview and was obliged to prepare the merit list on the basis of the marks obtained in the written examination and in the interview. The writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. Learned Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, though considered Rule 15(3) and Rule 15(4) of the applicable Rules, felt that the appellant secured poor marks as he secured in the written paper 68 marks out of 150 marks and, in the practical, 27.625 marks out of 100 marks. Learned Judge did not take notice of the fact that despite obtaining such marks, appellant was called in the interview and, accordingly, an expressed representation had been made to the appellant read with Rule 15(3) that he has secured such marks, which have been prescribed by the Commission as the standard for entailing the appellant to appear at the interview.
(3.) We, accordingly, interfere, set aside the judgment and order under Appeal and, at the same time, direct the Commission to ascertain, whoever has obtained 45 per cent marks in the interview and then add such marks with the marks obtained by him / her in the examination and on the basis thereof, to prepare a fresh list for supplying the remaining three vacancies.;