- (1.) IN this bunch of petitions, the petitioners who are employees of Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation have prayed for quashing of the orders of termination of their services. IN exercise of powers u/Sec. 122-A of the Utter Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, U. P. Cooperative Diary Federation and Milk Union Centralised Service Rules, 1984 were framed and on the basis of said rules petitioners were appointed on the post of management Trainee on consolidated salary and they were posted in various districts. The appointments orders provided that the services of the petitioners will be governed by the U. P. Cooperative Dairy Federation and Milk Union (Centralised Service) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It was provided in the appointment letter that they will have to undergo one year's training on the post of Management trainee and .the said period can be extended by one year at the discretion of the Management and in case they do not complete the said training successfully, their services without prejudice to other conditions of service, shall be terminated without assigning any reason and giving any any notice. It was further provided in the order that they will be allocated any discipline depending on the suitability and the requirement of the Federation irrespective of the options indicated by them in their applications. The appointment of the petitioner was made under sub-rule 2 (a) of Rule 20 of theU. P. Cooperative Dairy Federation and Milk Unions Centralised service Rules, 1984. The said rule 20 (2) (a) reads as. under :- "(2) (a) Considering the requirement of Manager, Grade-Ill and subject to the decision of the Committee, persons may be recruited as Management Trainees or by any other name and thereafter they shall be placed on one Years training, during which they shall be paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 1350/- p.m. on successful completion of the training and subject to such screening as may be laid down by the Committee, they shall be called Executives and paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 1750/- p.m. and shall further be placed on one Year's training : Provided that the Management Trainees already recruited by the Federation and Apprentices of category I and II already recruited by the Federation through National. Dairy Development Board and working as such on the date of enforcement of these rules, shall be. deemed to have been recruited under these rules and shall be paid consolidated salary of Rs. 1,350/- per month from the date of enforcement of these rules. The period of training already undergone by them shall be computed towards period of training provided under these rules : Provided further......... (b) The Executive on successful completion of ?the training and subject to such screening as may be laid down by the Committee, shall be appointed as Manager, Grade III." On behalf of the petitioner reference was made to Rule 17 (1) of the said rules. Rule 17 (1) reads as under - '17 (1) The employees of the Federation or Unions working on the managerial posts on the date of enforcement of these rules shall provisionally be deemed to be members of the service." A perusal of rule 17 quoted above indicates that same applies to the employees who were working on managerial posts and the management trainees' unless they dp not become Executives, they will not be holding any managerial post. Consequently Rule 17 does not apply in this case. Rule 20 (2) extracted above itself provides that Management Trainees shall be placed on one Years training and on successful completion of the training and subject to such screening they shall be called Executives and paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 1750/- and shall further be placed on one years training. IN absence of successful training, services of those persons were liable to terminated and on their successful completion of the training, they were liable to be absorbed as Executives. The petitioner not having been found suitable in screening, their services have been correctly terminated as Management Trainees.
(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties it has been stated that the petitioner appeared before the screening 'Committee along with other candidates and the screening committee which consisted of six members fixed a criteria to the effect that the candidates who will get 60 per cent or more than sixty per cent marks will be placed as Executives' and the candidates securing 50 per cent to 59 per cent marks will be given another chance for training as Management Trainees and the candidates who will get less than 50 per cent marks will be declared unsuccessful and their services will be liable to be terminated; The marks secured by respective candidates have also been annexed to the counter affidavit. It indicates that out of 100 marks only 20 marks were attributed to written test, 40 marks for performance appraisal and 40 marks were allocated for INterview. Out of 22 candidates 12 candidates secured more than 60 marks and 7 candidates secured marks between 50 to 59 and only three candidates secured less than 50 marks. Out of these three non-selected candidates one person secured 481 marks, the second secured 40 5 and the third secured 47.0 marks. But all these candidates secured 10.5, 9.5 and 10.0 marks in written test respectively while those who have been selected have secured even 6.5, 7.5, 8.5 and 9-0 marks in the written test. The candidates whose services have been terminated in the performance appraisal secured 31.6,24 and 26 marks respectively while those who secured lesser marks in performance appraisal have been selected. Likewise some of the candidates who have thus secured more than 60 marks have been given higher marks in interview. The rule does not provide anywhere that one who will be screened out will have to lose his job. Those whose services have been terminated have secured marks between 40 to 50. There appears to be no proper rational behind giving of the marks. In interview, performance appraisal and in written test, it cannot be said that there is any nexus so far as their merit or capability for recruitment is concerned. The screening committee had the jurisdiction to consider the merit of candidates and allow them to become Executives or screen them out and if it had jurisdiction to give yet another opportunity to those who could not succeed, there appears to be no reason why this opportunity was not given. The decision to terminate their services is arbitrary. This is more so when 40 per cent marks have been allotted to interview only. The assigning of 40 percent marks for Interview in any service cannot be justified. Undoubtedly interview which is not a written test, the courts should not interfere with it. But the courts are to interfere when more marks have been assigned to interview part, which gives an opportunity to the selectors to indulge in nepotism and favourtism In this connection reference may be made to the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana 1985 (4) SCC 417. It was held :- "The allocation of as high a percentage of marks as 33.3 per cent in case of ex-service officers and 22 2 per cent in case of other candidates, for the vive-voce test for selection to Haryana Civil (Executive Branch) and Allied Services is unreasonable and renders the selection process arbitrary. The spread of marks in the written examination, the viva voce test tended to become a determining factor in the selection process." The prescribing of 40 percent marks for Interview cannot be justified in matter and the same requires to be reduced in order to make selection process just fair and illegal and beyond it we are not making any observation as we are allowing this writ petition. The termination of services of those persons who secured less than 50 marks and have not been given another opportunity is not supportable by service rules. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 1-4-1987 contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition Is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to give an opportunity to the petitioners like others and consider their case for absorption like those who hive secured 50 to 60 pes cent marks. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed;