IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3314 of 2011
Yogesh Kumar, s/o- Shri Umesh Prasad, r/o- village maheshpur,
P.O.- Madhopur, P.S.- Chandi, District- Nalanda (Bihar).
....... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India , Ministry of Finance, through its Secretary,
New Delhi.
2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. Head Office-A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-
110002.
3. The General Manager, Personnel, The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. Head Office- A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-
110002.
4. The Deputy General Manager, The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. Head Office- A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New
Delhi-110002.
5. The Chief Regional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. Regional Office, Kadamkuan, Patna-800003.
.... Respondents
----------------------------------
with
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5243 of 2011
Ranjeet Kumar, s/o- Shri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, r/o- Master
Lodge, Near Dental College, M.G. Nagar, P.O.- Lohianagar, P.S.-
Kankarbagh, District- Patna, Permanent Address village Parthu,
P.O.- Parthu, P.S.- Ekangarsarai, District- Nalanda (Bihar).
……… Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India , Ministry of Finance, through its Secretary,
New Delhi.
2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. Head Office-A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-
110002.
3. The General Manager, Personnel, The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. Head Office- A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-
110002.
4. The Deputy General Manager, The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. Head Office- A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New
Delhi-110002.
5. The Chief Regional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. Regional Office, Kadamkuan, Patna-800003.
…….. Respondents
———————————-
with
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5324 of 2011
Reena Kumari, d/o- Shri Rajendra Prasad, r/o- c/o- Rabindra
Kumar Sinha,. Flat No. 402B, R.N. Villa Apartment, Plastic Pipe
Factory Road, M.G. Nagar, P.O.-Bahadurpur Housing Colony,
800026.
2
….. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India , Ministry of Finance, through its Secretary,
New Delhi.
2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. Head Office-A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-
110002.
3. The General Manager, Personnel, The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. Head Office- A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-
110002.
4. The Deputy General Manager, The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. Head Office- A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New
Delhi-110002.
5. The Chief Regional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. Regional Office, Kadamkuan, Patna-800003.
……….. Respondents
———————————-
with
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3320 of 2011
Pramila Kumari, w/o- Sri Prabhat Kumar, r/o- village Shahpur, P.O.-
Ramghat, P.s.- Nagarnausa, District- Nalanda (Bihar), Pin Code
801305
…… Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India , Ministry of Finance, through its Secretary,
New Delhi.
2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. Head Office-A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-
110002.
3. The General Manager, Personnel, The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. Head Office- A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-
110002.
4. The Deputy General Manager, The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. Head Office- A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New
Delhi-110002.
5. The Chief Regional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. Regional Office, Kadamkuan, Patna-800003.
…. Respondents
For the petitioners : Mr. Binay Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate
———————————-
9 11.08.2011 These batch of writ petitions have been clubbed together as
they raise common issue(s). With the consent of the parties, all the
aforesaid writ petitions have been heard together and the present
order would govern them. Relevant annexures of the case shall be
3
referred from C.W.J.C. No. 3314 of 2011 (Yogesh Kumar versus
Union of India).
In all the writ petitions, the writ petitioner(s) were applicants for
the post of Administrative Officer (for short A.O.) for which applications
were invited by the respondent Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (for
short ” the Insurance Company) by advertisement/employment notice
dated 27.2.2010 (Annexure-1). According to the aforesaid
employment notice, minimum educational qualifications for different
groups were prescribed. For the posts in question in Group-D (Code
No. 04) Graduation with minimum 60 % marks or 55 % in Master
degree for General Category from recognized University was
prescribed. As per the advertisement, total number of posts including
all categories was 165 out of which 44 posts was/were reserved for
OBC. Petitioners claiming themselves under OBC category applied for
the said post as they fulfilled educational qualification/criteria therefor.
Admit Cards (Annexure-2) were issued whereafter they participated in
the written test conducted on 9.5.2010. The respondents thereafter
short listed candidates for interview and a list of short listed
candidates was published on 25.6.2010 (Annexure-3). They were
called in for interview. The call letter is Annexure-4. Petitioners, in the
light of instructions contained therein, appeared before the interview
Board armed with all certificates. They were interviewed whereafter
the list of selected candidates was put up on the website of the
respondent Insurance Company on 19.8.2010. To utter surprise of the
petitioners, they did not find themselves in the select list. According to
4
the petitioners, they had performed extremely well at the written test
and the interview yet they were not selected by the respondent
Insurance Company. Certain information thereafter was sought under
Right to Information Act by the petitioners which was/were supplied
wherefrom it was revealed that for written test, 45 % marks for
general/O.B.C. in Paper-I and 40 % marks in Paper-II of Group-D was
applied as cut off marks. Details of marks obtained by the petitioners
at the written test/descriptive test and interview are as under:
Sl. Name Roll Marks Marks Sl. No. of Interview
No. Nol obtained obtained in the can-
in descrip- didate in
objective tive paper the list of
paper 50 marks successful
(150 candidate
marks) at the
written test
1 Yogesh 354169 125 20 251 1.5
Kumar
2 Ranjeet 354130 128 32 246 1.5
Kumar
3 Reena 354132 128 20 247 1.5
Kumari
4 Pramila 354145 124 25 248 1.5
Kumari
The petitioners thus knocked the doors of this Court seeking
quashment of the final result of the candidates for appointment to the
post of Administrative Officer in Group-D for which results were
published on 19.8.2010. Such challenge has been made on the
ground that the selection process was tainted with regional bias and
that awarding abysmally low marks in interview was irrational which
shocked the conscience of the petitioners. They also assail the
selection process on the ground that application of cut off marks at
5
interview would amount to changing rules of the game when it was
over. Petitioners also alleged discriminatory treatment at the interview
by awarding them excessively low marks in interview particularly when
they had performed extremely well in the written test having secured
more than 80 marks. According to the petitioners, such discriminatory
treatment meted out to them at the interview would militate against
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is thus
unsustainable in the eyes of law. Awarding of excessively low marks
at the interview has also been challenged on the ground that persons
constituting the interview panel/Board was suffering from regional bias
against the applicants who hailed from State of Bihar. Award of
abysmally low marks to them was an artifice to show them exit-door.
Several sets of counter affidavits have been filed to the writ
petitions.
Learned counsel for the petitioners made two fold
submissions. According to him, the advertisement (Annexure-A to the
counter affidavit) declared as under:
“The company reserves the right not to call
any candidate to appear at the written exam. and
interview. On the basis of performance in written
examination, candidates will be called for interview
and final selection will be made on overall
performance in written examination and interview. ”
The respondents could not have fixed a minimum cut off mark at the
interview in the face of aforesaid stipulation made in the
advertisement. The same would amount to changing rules of the
game midway which is not permissible in law. Reliance in this regard
has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
6
K. Manju Shree versus State of Andhra Pradesh since reported in
(2008) 3 S.C.C. 524. Challenge to the selection procedure has also
been made on the ground that the same was tainted with regional bias
inasmuch as applicants belonging to the State of Bihar like the
petitioners having obtained high marks in the written examination
were, by design, awarded excessively low marks at the interview.
Prayer, therefore, has also been made to direct the respondents to
hold de novo interview of the petitioners or to award marks in interview
proportionate to their score in the written test.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
supported the selection process adopted by the respondent Insurance
Company. In the submission of the respondents, ratio laid down in
Manjusree versus State of Andhra Pradesh since reported in (2008) 3
SCC 512 would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. The
said judgment was rendered by the Apex Court in a totally different
factual scenario. As about the interview of the short listed candidates
including the petitioner(s) held by the interview Board, it is submitted
that facts stated in the counter affidavit would eloquently indicate that
there was no bias much less regional bias in awarding marks to the
candidates including the writ petitioner(s) who faced interview. It is
next contended that the writ application(s) are bound to fail since the
petitioner had taken written test followed by interview and thus had
taken a chance to get themselves selected and having failed thereat,
they cannot be allowed to volte face and challenge the entire selection
process. In other words, if a candidate takes a calculated chance and
7
appears at the interview, then only because the result of the interview
is not palatable to him, he/they cannot turn around and contend that
the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was
not properly constituted. Reliance in this regard has been placed on
the case of Madal Lal and Ors versus the State of J & K since
reported in (1995) 3 S.C.C. 486. Learned counsel also highlighted the
importance of viva voce in the matter of selection. Relying on
paragraph 54 of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of K.H.
Siraj versus High Court of Kerala and Ors ((2006) 6 S.C.C. 395), it is
submitted that personal interview is the best mode of assessing the
suitability of a candidate for a particular post or position. While the
written examination is to testify the candidates academic knowledge,
the oral test alone can bring out his overall intellectual and personal
qualities like alertness, resourcefulness, dependability, ability to take
decision and qualities of leadership etc. He also placed reliance on
paragraph 5 of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lila
Dhar versus State of Rajasthan and Ors (1981) 4 S.C.C. 159. Arguing
further, it is contended that the Interview Board consisted of persons
of eminence in their fields and allegation of mala fide leveled against
them would not be sustainable in law for the reasons set out in the
counter affidavit as also the fact that none of them has been made
party respondents in the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, takes a stand
referring to Annexure-9 to C.W.J.C. No. 3320 of 2011 (Pramila
Kumari versus The Union of India & Ors) that a request was made to
8
supply names of the persons/officials who constituted the Interview
Board under the R.T.I. Act but the same was not disclosed for reasons
disclosed thereunder which prevented the petitioners from impleading
them as party respondents to the present set of writ petitions.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties
and perused the pleadings made in the writ petition, the counter
affidavit and reply/rejoinder thereto. Adverting to first ground of attack
that the entire selection process stand vitiated on account of changing
the Rules of Game midway, this Court would first enlist the facts
which are not in dispute. There is no statutory provision and/or Rule
governing the present selection process . It is also not the case of the
writ petitioners that in the earlier selection process carried out by the
respondents, any such cut off marks at the interview was not imposed.
The selection process was, therefore, required to be carried out in
terms of stipulations made in the advertisement or notice inviting
applications for selection to the post(s) in question. Petitioners, in this
regard, highlighted the stipulations in the said notice inviting
application (Annexure-A) which has already been extracted
hereinabove. It declares that selection will be made on overall
performance in written examination and interview. The petitioner, in
order to substantiate his stand has relied on the ratio laid down in K.
Manju Shree(supra). The stand of the respondents, per contra, is that
the ratio laid down in K. Manju Shree (supra) would not be applicable
to the facts of the present case. From perusal of the judgment
rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Manju Shree (supra) it
9
would appear that the criteria adopted during the selection process
was sought to be changed inasmuch as the ratio between the written
examination marks and interview marks was also changed. This fact
would appear from paragraph 8 of the report. It also appears
therefrom that a cut off percentage was also applied for interview
which was not the contemplation in the Andhra Pradesh State Higher
Judicial Service Rule, 1958 (for short “the Rules”). The respondents
had resolved to impose a cut off marks subsequent to the selection
process and preparation of select list in the teeth of the provision
contained in the Rules. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thus took into
consideration that the aforesaid amendment/modification in the criteria
to be adopted in the matter of selection of Judicial Officers was being
sought to be enforced after the selection process was completed and
the results were placed for approval. In these factual scenario, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held introduction of requirement of minimum
marks for interview after the entire selection process (consisting of
written examination and interview) was completed would amount to
changing the rules of the game which was held impermissible in law.
Respondents, in the counter affidavit, have stated that maximum
marks for written examination and the interview was 200 and 30
respectively. The candidates were considered for selection on the
basis of marks secured at written examination and interview. After the
written test, the respondents followed a uniform procedure for short
listing the candidates. The names of candidates who had appeared in
the written test and cleared the same was/were listed in descending
10
order of the marks obtained by them group wise, post wise, category
wise and paper/subject wise. A cut off mark was thereafter applied to
short list candidates for interview. The said cut off marks was paper
wise and category wise. For general/OBC such cut off was higher than
the cut off mark fixed for S.C./S.T.. Similarly, cut off marks for
S.C./S.T. category was same in all cases. By adopting the aforesaid
procedure, candidates three times the number of vacancies in each
group was/were empanelled for interview. While doing so, all
candidates who secured marks equal to the last qualifying candidate
was/were also called in for interview. As about the procedure adopted
at the interview, the respondents have stated that out of the
candidates who attended interview, those general/OBC categories
candidates who secured at least five (05) marks in the interview and
those S.C./S.T. category candidates who secured at least four (04)
marks in interview was/were short listed for final selection. After
preparing the list in accordance with the aforesaid procedure, the
same was arranged in descending order of the total marks obtained
by the candidates in written test and interview and candidates equal to
the number of vacancies against each post/group were given offer of
appointment. It is the stand of the respondents that prescribing cut off
marks cannot be pre-determined as the performance of the
candidates varies from batch to batch. So, per the practice, the
candidates are not informed about the required cut off marks to be
adopted at the interview. They are, however, emphatic in stating that
in all the recruitment processes of the respondent Company, similar
11
process of prescribing cut off marks for interview has been applied
before short listing candidates for final selection (refer paragraph 8 of
2nd supplementary counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 5324 of 2011). It
thus appears that notice inviting application for selection disclosed that
selection of a candidate would be made on overall performance in
written examination and interview. The respondents have stated in
detail the procedure which they adopted in short listing the candidates
for interview and thereafter for the final selection. I have also noticed
that no statutory provision or rule governs the present selection
process. It is the unambiguous stand of the respondents that in all
previous selection/recruitment process of the Company, similar
process of applying cut off marks for interview had been applied
before short listing of candidates for final selection. Considering the
submission(s) of the parties and perusing relevant pleadings in this
regard, this Court is satisfied that by applying a minimum cut off marks
at the interview, the respondents have not changed the rules of the
game. The ratio laid down in K. Manju Shree (supra) would not be
applicable to the facts of the present case. Challenge on that count
fails.
The next limb of attack to the selection process is on the plea
that the same was tainted with regional bias inasmuch as applicants
belonging to the State of Bihar like the petitioners were awarded
excessively low marks at the interview. This was with a design to
ensure that the doors of entering them in service of the Corporation be
slammed on their face. The said submission has been advanced on
12
the premise that the petitioners had secured high marks in the written
examination inasmuch as many of them secured more than 80 %
marks but they were awarded 1.5 marks at the interview which
perceivably appears to be excessively low and tainted with bias
termed by them as “regional bias”.
The respondents, on the other hand, have disputed and
controverted the aforesaid stand of the petitioner. It has been stated in
the reply affidavit(s) that such allegation springs from the fact that the
petitioner secured only 1.5 marks at the interview out of 30 marks. The
counter affidavit, in this regard, states that the selection was to be
made on all India basis and interview marks were awarded on the
basis of performance of the candidate in the interview. A person or
candidate may have good bookish knowledge and thus faired well at
the written test but he or she may be lacking required
knowledge/skills, adaptability, capacity to take prompt decision and
displaying qualities suitable for job. The interview is aimed at
evaluating these qualities. Relying on Lila Dhar (supra), the
respondents have substantiated the aforesaid stand. In Lila Dhar
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under in paragraph 5
relevant part thereof is extracted hereinbelow:
“It is now well recognized that while a written
examination assesses a candidate’s knowledge and
intellectual ability, an interview-test is valuable to assess
a candidate’s overall intellectual and personal qualities.
While a written examination has certain distinct
advantages over the interview-test there are yet no
written tests which can evaluate a candidate’s initiative,
alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness,
cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical
presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness
in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability,
13judgment , ability to make decision, ability to lead,
intellectual and moral integrity. Some of these qualities
may be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error,
by an interview-test, much depending on the constitution
of the Interview Board.”
The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in K.H.
Siraj versus H.C. Kerala (supra). It appears that the panel of Interview
Board consisted of four persons who are men of high integrity and
caliber. This Court deems it germane to enlist hereinbelow the
members constituting the interview Board:
“(a) Mr. D. Sengupta, Chairman- Retd, Chairman,
Gen. Insurance Corporation of India
(b) Mr. M.R. Sharda, Member, – Retd. General
manager of Oriental Insurance Company Limited
(c) Mr. A.K. Das, Member, Retd. I.D.E.S., Addl.
Secretary, Govt. of India.
(d) Dr. A.S. Narag, Member, faculty of
Management, Delhi University”
It appears further from the averments made in the counter
affidavit that 08 candidates from different streams/groups have been
selected who belong to the State of Bihar. The primal ground of attack
is that although the writ petitioners secured high marks at the written
test yet they were awarded abysmally low marks at the interview. The
respondents have clarified in paragraph 10(v) and (vi) as under
” (v) The average marks awarded in interview for D
Group as a whole was 5.74 and the average marks
awarded to OBC candidate under D Group was 3.89.
Thus, marks awarded in interview was generally low.
(vi) For illustration candidates of other states who had
secured equally low marks in the interview include
candidate from different states ex.:
State Number of
candidates
Haryana 2
U.P. 3
Delhi 5
Karnataka 2
A.P. 1
Punjab 1
Uttarakhand 2
14
Himachal Pradesh 1
Orissa 1
Kerala 1
Jharkhand 1
West Bengal 1
On a consideration of the submissions of the parties made in
this regard and after perusal of the materials on record, this Court
does not find any merit in the submission of the petitioners that the
selection process was tainted with mala fide and/or regional bias.
Award of low marks to the petitioners at the interview would not suffice
to hold that a discriminatory treatment was meted out to the petitioners
at the interview which would militate against Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. This Court, while concluding so has also taken
into account that the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate
any personal bias of the members of the interview Board against
them.
This matter may be viewed from yet another angle also. The
petitioners were found eligible for written test and was called in
therefor. They participated therein and thereafter was/were short listed
for oral interview. On being summoned, they appeared at the oral
interview conducted by a team of persons of high integrity and caliber
and after having failed to get the desired result, filed the present writ
petitions challenging the process/procedure adopted at the interview
as unfair, discriminatory and biased. The Supreme Court having
noticed the aforesaid facts refused relief in Om Prakash Shukla versus
Akhilesh Kumar Shukla (1986 ) Suppl. SCC 285 = A.I.R. 1986 S.C.
1043. Same view has been held by the Supreme Court in the State of
Bihar versus Madan Lal (supra). Ratio laid down in aforesaid cases, in
15
my view, would also be applicable to the present case.
In the light of discussions made hereinabove, this Court does
not find merit in the writ petitions. They are, accordingly, dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)