K. MANJUSREE v. STATE OF AP. & ANR

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 1025

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.M. PANCHAL

Case summary

K. MANJUSREE v. STATE OF AP. & ANR.pdf

Judgment text

[2008] 2 S. C. R. 1025 K. MANJUSREE II. STATE OF AP. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 1313 of 2008) FEBRUARY 15, 2008 (K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ. , R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND J. M. PANCHAL, JJ. ) " Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service : Appointment to posts of District and Sessions Judge (Grade-II) - By direct recruitment - Allocation for marks for written examination and interview - Change in criteria after commencement/completion of selection process - Legality of - HELD: Authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe, by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interview or may not prescribe any minimum .. ,..

-1 marks either for written examination and/or interview - Where rules do not prescribe any procedure, Selection Committee may also prescribe such minimum marks, but it should do so before commencement of selection process - Changing criteria after completion of selection process would be illegal - On facts, when Administrative Committee of High Court had clearly resolved on 30. 11.

2004 that evaluation ofperformance should be with reference to 75 marks for written examination and 25 marks for interview and minimum qualifying marks for --:~ various categories would be 'as prescribed earlier', conducting written examination with reference to 100 marks, and prescribing minimum qualifying marks for interview, which criterion was not there in the earlier selection and which was introduced after entire selection process was completed, would amount to changing the criteria during the selection process '> or thereafter, which is clearly impermissible and illegal - High Court would redraw merit list by scaling down written examination marks to 75 from 100 and without applying any minimum marks for interview - Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1958.

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 13q - Petition for special leave to appeal - HELD: Is not maintainable as the petitioner is not aggrieved by the selection process nor did she file any writ petition in the High Court - The SLP is also liable to be rejected on the ground of delay. In the State of Andhra Pradesh 1O posts of District and Sessions Judge (Grade-II) to be filled in by direct recruitment were advertised on 28. 5. 2004. The qualification for the post was prescribed in the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1958. The matter and method of selection was to be decided by the · High Court. The Administrative Committee of the High Court, exercising its powers under the Standing Orders of the High Court, by a resolution dated 30. 11. 2004, prescribed the method and manner of selection. It resolved to conduct the written examination for 75 marks and o·r,al examination for 25 marks: It also resolved that the minimum qualifying marks for various cat·egories wou.

ld be. 'as prescribed earlier'. However, after the examination, merit lists of the candidates for different categories were prepared on the basis of a total of 125 marks which included 100 for written examination and 25 marks for interview. Accordingly, the interview Committee (ecommended 10 candidates under various categories. 1fMl f'dministrative Committee approved the selection list. TJle Full Court by its minutes dated 6. 4. 2006 impliedly approved the resolution dated 30. 11. 2004 but did not agree .... with the selection list. Thereafter, a sub-Committee prepared a fresh selection list after proporttonate.. recalculation of marks, scaling down the marks obta. ini:ld by the candidates in t. he written examination with reference to a total of 100 to 75 and by adding the interview +- K. MANJUSREE v. STATE OF AP. & ANR. 1027 ~ marks obtained out of 25 marks. The sub-Committe(;!

also opined that the criterion of minimum qualifying marks for written examination should also· be applied for minimum marks in interview. Since the minimum percentage to pass the written examination was 50% for open category, 40% for backward classes and . 35. % for ·SC and ST categories, the same corresponding percentage was fixed for ·1' respective categories for the interview. On that basis, only 9 . candidates were recommended for selection, as the marks obtained in the interview by the only woman candidate in S~ category fell below the minimum qualifying percentage. The second list contained the names of 5 out of the 10 candidates who had been recommended in the earlier list. Two of the candidates whose names were found in the first list at serial no.

3 and 7 and were eliminated in the ')-~ second list, filed two writ petitions contending that the action of the High Court in preP,aring selection list by prescribing minimum qualifying marks for the inteniiew was arbitrary and illegal. They prayed that selection list · be redrawn without adopting minimum qualifying marks for the interview. The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the candidate at SI. No. 3 in the first list filed Civil Appeal No. 1313 of 2008. Various selected/non-selected candidates filed the I. As/ and the ,_, _. ,. other matters. The questions for consideration before the Court were: (i) what was the procedure (method and manner of . selection) prescribed by the Administrative committee for filling the posts advertised on 28. 5. 2004? (ii) whether the list prepared by the Interview Committee and approved ,,. ' by the Administrative Committee suffered from any error, irregularity or illegality?

and (iii) whether the procedure adopted by the Full Court in preparing the fresh selection list by applying the requirement of minimum marks for interview also, is legal and valid? Disposing of the matters, the Court ~ HELD: 1. 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1958 did not prescribe any procedure for selection. When the posts were advertised, the only criterion for selection that was mentioned was that the 8 selection will be by holding a written examination followed by an interview. There was no general prescription of ~ guidelines or norms or criteria for holding the written examination and interview. When the Administrative Committee decided on 30. 11. 2004 that the minimum qualifying marks for OC/BC/SC/ST shall be as prescribed earlier it obviously referred to what was prescribed when the previous recruitment was made in 2001-2002.

A perusal of the resolution makes it clear that it was decided to have only minimum qualifying marks in the written test and not for the oral examination~ This is evident from the subject placed for consideration on 21. 2. 2002 and the resolution ~* on the subject. The subject for consideration was: "Minimum qua'lifying marks in the written examination" The resolution stated that the minimum qualifying marks was 50% for open category, 40% for Backward Classes and 35% for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes in the written examination". It did not prescribe any minimum marks for the interviews. Nor was it understood as . prescribing any minimum marks for the interview. [para 16 and 18]. [1041-F, G; 1042-D, E, F; 1043-G; 1044-A] 1. 2 It has been brought to the notice of the Court that for the 2001-2002 selections, the procedure adopted was that all candidates who passed the written examination by securing.

the minimum marks were called for interview and the interview marks were added to the written examination marks for the purpose of preparing the merit :- -· \_ . Backward Class - Group B : 1 (Woman) Scheduled Caste : 2 (1 Woman) Scheduled Tribe : 1 . The advertisement stated that a written examination ~ followed by an interview will be held for selection to the above posts. The last date for receipt of applications was . 15. 6. 2004. H . In all 1637 applications were received. On scrutiny 1516 .... -?. K. MANJUSREE v. STATE OF AP. & ANR. 1035 applicants were eligible to take the written examination. -·. ,I -t 4. The Full Court of Andhra Pradesh High Court has authorized its Chief Justice to constitute Committees for the convenience of administration. The resolutions of the Full Court containing the guidelines relating to the functioning of the High Court have been compiled in the form of standing orders. SO 2. 13 enumerates the matters to be deait with by the Full Court. ( .. ,..

~ SO 2. 14 enumerates the matters to be dealt with by the Administrative Committee. Recruitment of District Judges is a matter to be dealt with by the Administrative committee under SO 2. 14. The decision/minutes of the Administrative committee in regard to recruitment of District Judges are thereafter placed before the Full Court for its consideration under SO 2. 13. 5. The Administrative committee by its resolution dated . 30. 11. 2004 decided the method and manner of selection. It resolved to conduct the written examination for the candidates for 75 marks and oral examination for 25 marks. It also resolved . _,,/' ---l that the minimum qualifying marks for the OC, BC, SC and ST candidates shall be as prescribed earlier. As per its direction, the written examination was held on 30. 1. 2005 and 1026 candidates appeared for the examination. The results were declared on 24. 2. 2005 and 83 candidates were successful in the written examination.

Due to the pendency of some litigation, • interviews could not be held immediately. A committee of five Judges was constituted for interviewing the candidates and ---.. interviews were held in March 2006. Thereafter, the marks ' --. # ,. .. , obtained by the 83 candidates in the written examination and in the interview·were aggregated and a consolidated merit list of the 83 candidates wa prepared in the order of merit on the basis of the aggregate marks. It contained (i) the registration number, (ii) the names of the candidates, (iii) reservation catego1y, (iv) . rJ marks secured in the written examination out of 100 marks, (v) ..... marks secured in the interview out of 25 marks, and (vi) the ! --I total marks secured in the written examination and interview I&/ out of 125. Thereafter, five more merit lists in respect of categories BC-A, BC-B, BC-D, SC and ST were prepared. On ~ ·~ the basis of the said lists, the Interview Committee finalized the ~.. - -...

following list of candidates to be recommended for appointment as per merit and reservation, and submitted to the Administrative committee with a report dated 3. 4. 2006 : I . _ i, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGES GRADE-II ' EXAMINATION ' (LIST OF CANDIDATES TO BE RECOMMENDED FOR ~"'r· \ • :• APPOINTMENT) 51. Regn. Name ofthe Category Written Interview Total No Number candidate Exam. (out of marks (out of 25) (for 100) 125) ' ' ! 01 1859 Smt. Venkata oc 72 9. 6 81. 6 Jyothrimayee I.. _ 02 ·1775 Smt. C. Sumalatha oc 61 19. 4 ·80. 4 l 03 1073 Smt. k. Manju Sree oc 68. 5 10. 6 79. 1 ~- r 04 1694 A. Harl Haranatha Sarma oc 64. 5 14. 4 78. 9 05 1009 Smt. G. Anupama BC(A) 51 8. 6 59. 6 Chakravarthy 06 1590 Smt. V. B. Nirmala BC(B) 59. 5 16. 4 . 75. 9 Geethamba 07 1059 M. Lakshman BC(D) 59 8. 2 67. 2 08 1176 BSV. Prakash Kumar SC 49 10 59 09 2336 Smt. Girija M. SC 48 8. 4 56. 4 Priyadarshani 10 1220 N. Tukaramji ST 36. 5 11. 4 47. 9 6.

The Administrative committee considered the report, the merit list and list of recommended candidates proposed by the interview and by resolution dated 4. 4. 2006 approved the selection of the said ten candidates and directed the said 'select list' be placed before the Full Court on 6. 4,2006 for its -{ -,,, consideration. lllf 7. The Full Court considered the resolutions of the Administrative committee dated 30. 11. 2004 and 4. 4. 2006 and the record of selection. The Full Court impliedly approved the resolution dated 30. 11. 2004. But it did not agree with the selection list prepared by the Interview committee and approved by the Administrative committee by resolution dated 4. 4. 2006. T-- The Full Court authorized the Chief Justice to constitute a committee of Judges for preparing a fresh list of candidates to be recommended for appointment of District & Session Judges -i (Grade II). Accordingly, the Chief Justice appointed a subcommittee of two Judges on 7. 4. 2006.

The said sub-committee was of the view that the candidates should be evaluated with reference to written examination marks of 75 and interview . marks of 25 as per the resolution dated 30. 11. 2004, instead of being evaluated with reference to written examination marks of ,_,. ,,. 100 and interview of 25, thereby varying the prescribed ratio between written examination marks and interview marks from 3:1 to 4:1. Therefore, it scaled down the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination with reference to a total of 100, in proportion to a maximum marks of 75. By adding the interview marks of 25, the total marks obtained by the candidates with reference to a total of 100 (as against 125) were recalculated. The sub-committee was also of the view that apart from applying the minimum marks for the written examination for determining the eligibility of the candidates to > ,.

, - the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interJiews, 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 ~t· ~ I f. 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 'rminimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee want to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it ~- ,'-should do so before the commencement of selection process.

If the selection committee prescribed mJnimum 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. -"T" 30. It was submitted that Administrative Committee and Interview Committee were only delegates of the Full Court and the Full Court has the absolute power to determine or regulate the process of selection and it has also the power and authority to modify the decisions of the Administrative Committee. There can be no doubt about the proposition.

The Administrative Committee being only a delegate of the Full Court, all decisions and resolutions ofAdministrative Committee are placed before . , ~ the Full Court for its approval and the Full Court may approve, rmodify or reverse any decision ofthe Administrative Committee. ' For example when the resolution dated 30. 11. 2004 was passed it was open to the Full Court, before the process of selection began, to either specifically introduce a provision that there should be minimum marks for interviews, or prescribe a different ratio of marks instead of 75 for written examination and 25 for - f minimum marks in interviews, which had the effect of eliminating candidates, who would otherwise be eligible and suitable for selection. Therefore, we hold that the action of Full Court in revising the merit list by adopting a minimum percentage of marks for interviews was impermissible. 31.

The Division Bench of the High Court while considering the validity of the second list, has completely missed this aspect + of the matter. It has proceeded on an erroneous assumption ~ that the resolution dated 30. 11. 2004 of the 'Administrative ~ Committee prescribed minimum marks for interviews. Consequently, it erroneously held that the Administrative Committee had . acted contrary to its own resolution dated 30. 11. 2004 in not excluding candidates who had not secured the minimum marks in the interview and that the Full Court had ~, merely corrected the wrong action of the Administrative · Committee by drawing up the revised merit list by applying marks for interview also. The decision of the Division Bench therefore, cannot be sustained. ll CONCLUSION 32. We therefore,Jind that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. has to be set aside with a direction to the AP High Court to redraw the merit list without applying any 0 minimum marks for interview.

The merit list will have to be ""'T prepared in regard to 83 candidates by adding the marks secured in written examination and the marks secured in the interview. Thereafter, separate lists have to be prepared for each reservation category and then- the final selection of 1O candidates will have to be made. The scaling down of the written examination marks with reference to 75 instead of 100 is however, proper. 33. In view of our said decision, WP(C) No. 51/2007 and WP(C) No. 97/200'7 do not survive for consideration. As a ... :;;; ~ candidate is available under the category of SC (Woman) and she will be selected, the question of considering whether that post should be transferred to SC (General) does not arise. 34. The SLP by Thirumala Devi is not maintained. She was not a selected candidate, either in the first list or second list. She did not challenged the process of selection by filing a -- I ' 35.

In view of the above, we dispose of the matter as follows: , (i) The application for impleadment (IAs 2, 3, 4 & 5 filed in SLP(C) No. 18330/2006) are allowed. · (ii) The civil appeal filed by K. Manjusree is allowed and the judg01ent of the High Court is set aside. The High Court is 1"' directed to prepare a fresh merit list in regard to 83 candidates with reference to their marks in written test and interview without applying any minimum marks for interviews and thereafter finalise the selections in accordance with law. (iii) The appointments of five candidates in pursuance of our interim order need not be disturbed. The said five candidates will find a place in the selection list even when it is redone, though their ranks/reservation category may vary. Their rank and seniority· will depend upon the fresh selection list of ten candidates to be drawn and not on the appointment made in pursuance of the interim order. (iv) WP(C) No. 51/2007 and WP(C) No. 97/2007 are dismissed.

(v) The application for permission to file SLP by Thirumala Devi is rejected. As a consequence SLP (CC) No. 7188-79/ 2007 is rejected. R. P. Matters disposed of. .. ~