AJAY TEWARI, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of CWP Nos.8244 of 2008, 5397 and 10298 of 2009, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from CWP No.8244 of 2008.
(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents in introducing cut off marks of 60% to be obtained in the written examination for internal candidates for appointment to the posts of TE/TO in the Discipline of Civil Engineering. Brief facts are that selection for internal candidates admittedly is by way of written test followed by an interview. The precise grievance is that the requirement of obtaining 60% marks was imposed after the selection process was initiated whereas in the previous year it was 55%. (In fact learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that this requirement was imposed after the result had been scrutinized, but learned counsel for the respondents has rightly pointed out that the documents on record do not give rise to an irresistible conclusion that this must have happened).
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has argued that tinkering with the selection process may be justified when there is requirement for shortlisting. For instance, originally it may be prescribed that persons receiving beyond a certain percentage would be called for interview. However, when the result comes out and it transpires that number of persons to be called for interview is disproportionately large as compared to the posts available, in those circumstances for the purpose of shortlisting and having more manageable numbers, Courts have accepted deviation from the normal policy of prior fixation of standards. However, as per him, what has been done in the present case is not only impermissible but otherwise also is highly impracticable because admittedly against 56 vacancies, 57 persons had applied and 55 appeared and by the imposition of this criteria, only 8 candidates got the required 60% marks. As per him, this clearly violates the mandate of law in K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2008)3 Supreme Court Cases 512, wherein their Lordships held as follows : - "33. The Resolution dated 30.11.2004 merely adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore, extending the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interviews, in the selection process is impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee wants to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the Selection Committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process, add an additional requirement that the candidates should also secure minimum marks in the interview. What we have found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview." ;