D.G., Indian Council For Agri. Res.& Ors vs D. Sundara Raju

Agricultural Research & Others ... Appellants

Versus

D. Sundara Raju ... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. This appeal emanates from the judgment and order of the

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore

delivered in Writ Petition No. 19516 of 2004.

2. Brief facts which are relevant to dispose of this appeal

are recapitulated as under:

3. The controversy in this appeal pertains to the promotion

to the post of Principal Scientist under the "Career

Advancement Scheme" formulated by the Indian Council for

1

Agricultural Research (hereinafter referred to as `ICAR'). There

are two streams from which selections are made to the post of

Principal Scientist: (i) Direct recruitment; and (ii) Promotion

from the post of Senior Scientist on the basis of personal

merit.

4. The ICAR had formulated the "Career Advancement

Scheme" in consultation with the Department of Personnel &

Training and Ministry of Finance, Government of India laying

down guidelines for promotion of a Scientist from one grade to

another in the Agricultural Research Services (ARS) cadre,

which were made effective from 27.7.1998. The promotion of

scientist to the next higher grade (Principal Scientist) is

independent of the occurrence of vacancies and is based only

when the applicant secures the requisite merit.

5. The procedure for promotion to the post of Principal

Scientist is contained in Para 2.4 of the Career Advancement

Scheme. The relevant rule is set out as under:

2 "In addition to the sanctioned posts of Principal

Scientists as per cadre strength already fixed, which

is to be filled through direct recruitment through All

India advertisement, promotions will be made from

posts of Senior Scientist to the posts of Principal

Scientists after 8 years of service as Senior

Scientist. This promotion will be personal to the

Scientist who is promoted.

A senior Scientist will be promoted to the post

of Principal Scientist if he/she:

i. has completed 8 years of service; and

ii. he/she presents himself/herself before the

Selection Committee constituted by ASRB with

some of the following:

a) Self appraisal reports (required).

b) Research contribution/books/

articles/ research papers published.

c) Any other academic contributions.

The best three written contributions

of the Sr. Scientist (as defined by

him/her) may be sent in advance to

the experts to review before coming

for the selection. The candidate

should be asked to submit these in

3 sets with the application.

d) Seminars / conferences attended.

e) Contribution to teaching/academic

environment/institutional corporate

life.

3

f) Extensions and filed outreach

activities."

6. A Selection Committee was constituted under the Career

Advancement Scheme for considering eligibility of applicants

for promotion from the post of Senior Scientist to Principal

Scientist. The Selection Committee consisted of a Chairman,

Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred

to as "ASRB"), Director General, ICAR or his nominee, three

experts and the Director of the Institute of the applicant. For

different disciplines, different Selection Committees were

constituted with three experts from the relevant discipline so

that the merit of the applicant could be comprehensively and

accurately assessed. The said Selection Committee allocated

marks for the assessment procedure for promotion as under:-

Research Publication/Achievement 30 marks

Recommendation of Superiors 20 marks

Personal Interview 50 marks

7. The minimum required marks to qualify for promotion to

the post of Principal Scientist was 60 marks out of 100 marks.

The candidates were accordingly assessed and the

recommendation for promotion or otherwise was submitted to

4

the Minister of Agriculture for his approval in his capacity as

the President of ICAR.

8. The respondent is a Senior Scientist in the service of the

ICAR at the National Research Centre for Cashew at Puttur,

Karnataka. Upon the respondent submitting information as

per the prescribed assessment proforma, the ASRB addressed

a letter to the Respondent calling upon him to present himself

for assessment and interview for the Career Advancement

Scheme. Accordingly, the respondent appeared for an

interview before Selection Committee on 3.5.2001. However,

the respondent secured only 49 marks out of 100 and was

found unfit for promotion to the post of Principal Scientist.

The recommendation of the Selection Committee was approved

by the competent authority, i.e., the Union Minister for

Agriculture. The respondent was accordingly intimated of his

non-promotion as a Principal Scientist on 14.8.2001.

9. The respondent made representations to the appellant

Institute for review of the decision of not promoting him, but,

when the respondent did not get any relief from the appellant

5

institute, he filed a case (original application) before the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. The Tribunal

clearly held that the ICAR had acted in an arbitrary manner to

allocate 50% marks for a personal interview and on this

ground alone the non-selection of the applicant ought to be set

aside.

10. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench

quashed the order of the ICAR and the appellants were

directed to consider the case of the respondent for promotion

to the higher grade of a Principal Scientist with effect from

27.07.1998. The Tribunal also observed that the respondent

would be entitled for notional fixation of pay but would not be

entitled for arrears of back wages.

11. The appellants, aggrieved by the said order of the

Tribunal filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court.

The High Court observed that it is not in dispute that the

respondent was entitled to be considered for promotion to the

post of Principal Scientist under the Career Advancement

Scheme. It was also not in dispute that he was invited for

6

such consideration by the concerned authorities. The only

question which, according to the High Court, fell for

consideration was whether the claim of the respondent was

considered was in consonance with the Scheme? The

Selection Committee constituted by the appellant had devised

a method of evaluation of the candidates according to which it

had allocated 30 marks for research publication/achievement,

20 marks for recommendation of superiors and 50 marks for

personal interview out of a total of 100 marks.

12. The High Court held that the Career Advancement

Scheme does not however sanction any such procedure. It

does not refer to or even remotely indicate that an interview of

the candidate can provide a basis for determining his

entitlement to promotion. The High Court also observed that

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras was justified in

allowing the petition of the respondent. The High Court

relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok alias

Somanna Gowda and Another v. State of Karnataka

(1992) 1 SCC 28 in which it has been laid down that 50%

7

marks in the interview was excessive and rendered the process

of selection arbitrary.

13. The High Court has also observed that the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, correctly came to the

conclusion that the Scheme did not envisage holding of any

interview.

14. The High Court also relied on para 2.4(ii) of the Scheme

and observed that Senior Scientists are eligible to the post of

Principal Scientist if they have completed eight years of service

and if he/she presents himself/herself before the Selection

Committee constituted by ASRB with the documents indicated

therein. The fact that the eligible officer appears before the

Selection Committee with the relevant documents does not

necessarily imply that the process of evaluation of his merit

has to be on the basis of an interview nor does it indicate that

the weightage to the interview can go to the extent of 50% of

the total marks. The High Court upheld the judgment of the

Tribunal.

8 15. The appellants, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, as

upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court, has preferred

this appeal on the following grounds before this Court.

A) Whether the Division Bench erred in holding

that award of 50% of marks for interview was

excessive and rendered the selection process

arbitrary?

B) Whether the inclusion of an interview process

is a material irregularity that vitiated the

selection process?

C) Whether the Division Bench was justified in

holding that the Career Advancement Scheme

precluded the Selection Committee from adopting

an appropriate method of evaluation?

D) Whether a distinguished body of experts

constituting the Selection Committee appointed

under the Career Advancement Scheme had no

power to assess and interview the applicants for

promotion?

E) Whether the High Court was justified in not

appreciating that appointment to the post of a

Principal Scientist was not on the basis of

seniority but on the basis of merit alone through

a process of assessment by a high powered

Selection Committee.

F) Whether, under the Career Advancement

Scheme, the promotion to the post of a Principal

Senior Scientist is merely upon the completion of

8 years of service or is based exclusively on the

individual merit of the applicant?

9 G) Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Bangalore was bound to follow an erroneous

Order rendered by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Madras.

16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted

that the Division Bench erred in directing the appellants to

reconsider the case of the respondent as he had secured only

49 out of 100 in the selection process and was not found fit

for promotion to the post of Principal Scientist under the

Career Advancement Scheme.

17. The impugned judgment was also challenged on the

ground that the Division Bench ought to have appreciated that

the Career Advancement Scheme provides for an interview

procedure in para 2.4 (ii), where it states that "the applicant

shall present himself/herself before the Selection Committee".

18. The appellants also submitted that the Division Bench

has erred in holding that award of 50% of marks for interview

was excessive and rendered the entire selection process

arbitrary. The appellant further submitted that Division Bench

10

erred in holding that the inclusion of an interview process is a

material irregularity that vitiated the selection process.

19. The appellants further submitted that the Division Bench

of the High Court ought to have appreciated that the post of

Principal Scientist is a very senior post which requires many

personal and intellectual qualities and attributes which can be

evaluated only through a personal interview of the applicant.

20. The impugned judgment was also challenged on the

ground that the Division Bench of the High Court ought to

have appreciated that the weightage to be given for the

interview procedure had been determined by a body of experts

constituting the Selection Committee based on the post for

which promotions were being considered.

21. Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants submitted that the inclusion of an interview could

not be treated as material irregularity that vitiated the entire

selection process. Mr. Chaturvedi further submitted that

the Division Bench seriously erred in holding that award of

11

50% of marks for interview was excessive and rendered the

selection process arbitrary.

22. Mr. Chaturvedi also submitted that the interview Board

consisted of academicians and they were justified in

formulating the criteria which should not be disturbed by the

court. He submitted that according to the Career Advancement

Scheme, the promotion to the post of Principal Scientist is not

dependant merely on completion of 8 years of service. He

placed reliance on the judgment of this court in K.A.

Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Others (2009) 5 SCC 515

to strengthen his submission. According to him, for the post

of Upper Managerial cadre, allocation of 50% marks for

interview cannot be termed as arbitrary. In this case, 25%

marks were kept for viva voce which were not found to be

excessive. This case has no application to the facts of the

instant case because in the instant case, 50% marks have

been kept for interview. This case does not support the case of

the appellants in any manner.

12 23. Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance

on the judgment of this court in Kiran Gupta and Others v.

State of U.P. and Others (2000) 7 SCC 719. In this case,

this court has taken the view that it is difficult to accept the

omnibus contention that selection on the basis of viva voce

only was arbitrary and illegal since allocation of 15% marks

for the interview was not held to be arbitrary by this court,

this case also provides no assistance to the appellants because

in the instant case 50% marks have been kept for the

interview.

24. Mr. Manu Mridul, the learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that the Career Advancement Scheme did not

envisage conducting of any interview for the eligible candidates

and introduction of interview itself was arbitrary and against

the Career Advancement Scheme.

25. He also submitted that the candidates were never

informed that 50% marks would be allocated for interview.

Therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent to have

13

challenged the aspect of allocating marks for interview before

his appearing for the interview.

26. He also contended that allocation of 50% marks for

interview out of a total of 100 marks was highly excessive,

hence arbitrary. He submitted the allocation of 50% marks for

interview is clearly contrary to a large number of judgments of

this court.

27. Mr. Mridul further contended that the respondent was

considered for selection to the post of Principal Scientist on

the basis of his work and performance from 1985 to 1998.

According to him, the nature, work, duties and responsibilities

of a Senior Scientist and Principal Scientist are almost

identical in nature, but in order to remove stagnation, the

promotion is envisaged under the Career Advancement

Scheme. He submitted that the stand of the respondent is

fortified, reinforced and strengthened by the Career

Advancement Scheme 2004 and 2005 of the appellants.

According to the `Information Handbook of Agricultural

14

Scientists' Recruitment Board under Right to Information Act,

2005, the criteria for promotion is that the Board evaluates

the contribution made by the concerned Scientist in academic

research. The Board also evaluates the confidential reports for

the last eight years while granting benefit of the scheme.

28. According to the procedure of the Career Advancement

Scheme of 2004, the allocation of marks for personal interview

has been reduced from 50% to 10% because the appellants

themselves realized that allocation of 50% marks was highly

excessive and in clear contravention to the series of judgments

of this court.

29. He also submitted that in 2007, the Career Advancement

Scheme has undergone a further change and for personal

interview, 20% marks have been allocated. According to him,

in any event, allocation of 50% marks was highly excessive

and in contravention of the law declared by this court in a

series of judgments.

30. Mr. Mridul fairly submitted that in exceptional cases if

the nature of job is such then even 50% allocation of marks for

15

interview could be justified. But, in the instant case, the

promotion to the post of Principal Scientist is primarily

dependant on the length of service as Senior Scientist,

publication and evaluation of confidential reports. The

promotion to this post is granted predominantly to remove

stagnation. For the selection to the post of Principal Scientist,

by no stretch of imagination, 50% marks can be justified. He

placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Dr. S.M. Ilyas

and Others v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research

and Others (1993) 1 SCC 182. In the Career Advancement

Scheme, the seniority is the important criteria apart from the

publication and the evaluation of the confidential reports.

Therefore, there cannot be any justification in allocating 50%

marks for interview.

31. Mr. Mrudil also argued that the appellants in their

wisdom reduced the allocation of marks for interview from

50% to 10% to eliminate or reduce the arbitrariness for the

subsequent selections for the post of Principal Scientist.

16 32. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Mridul

submitted that 50% marks allocated for interview were highly

excessive and rendered the selection of the candidates

arbitrary. He placed reliance on a judgment of this court in

Ashok Kumar Yadav & Others v. State of Haryana &

Others (1985) 4 SCC 417, wherein the Court observed as

under:

"..the object of any process of selection for entry into

public service is to secure the best and the most

suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and

favouritism. Selection based on merit, tested

impartially and objectively, is the essential

foundation of any useful and efficient public service.

So open competitive examination has come to be

accepted almost universally as the gateway to

public services. But the question is how should the

competitive examination be devised? The

competitive examination may be based exclusively

on written examination or it may be based

exclusively on oral interview or it may be a mixture

of both. It is entirely for the Government to decide

what kind of competitive examination would be

appropriate in a given case. To quote the words of

Chinnappa Reddy, J. "In the very nature of things it

would not be within the province or even the

competence of the Court and the Court would not

venture into such exclusive thickets to discover

ways out, when the matters are more appropriately

left" to the wisdom of the experts. It is not for the

Court to lay down whether interview test should be

held at all or how many marks should be allowed

for the interview test. Of course the marks must be

17

minimal so as to avoid charges of arbitrariness, but

not necessarily always. There may be posts and

appointments where the only proper method of

selection may be by a viva voce test. Even in the

case of admission to higher degree courses, it may

sometimes be necessary to allow a fairly high

percentage of marks for the viva voce test. That is

why rigid rules cannot be laid down in these

matters by courts. The expert bodies are generally

the best judges. The Government aided by experts

in the field may appropriately decide to have a

written examination followed by a viva voce test."

33. This Court further observed that the Court does not

possess the necessary equipment and it would not be right for

the Court to pronounce upon it, unless to use the words of

Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan

and Others (1981) 4 SCC 159 observed that the exaggerated

weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives.

34. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the respondent submitted

that the controversy is no longer res integra. According to

him, a 4-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav

& Others (supra) has observed 22.2% marks of the total

marks allocated for the viva voice test as infecting the selection

process with the vice of arbitrariness.

18 35. In Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra), the Court relied on

earlier judgment of this Court in Ajay Hasia and Others v.

Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others (1981) 1 SCC 722,

wherein the Court took up the view that allocation of as high a

percentage as 33.3% of the total marks for the viva voice test

was beyond reasonable proportion and rendered the selection

of the candidates arbitrary.

36. In Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. Sobha Joseph (1971) 1

SCC 38, the Court observed that earmarking 75 marks out of

275 marks for interview as interview marks prima facie

appears to be excessive. The Court observed that various

researches conducted in other countries particularly in USA

show that there is possibility of serious errors creeping in

interviews made on haphazard basis. C.W. Valentine on

"Psychology and its Bearing on Education" refers to the marks

given to the same set of persons interviewed by two competent

Boards and that is what is stated in his book:

"The members of each board awarded a mark to

each candidate and then he was discussed and an

average mark agreed on.

19

When the orders of merit for the two boards were

compared it was found that the man placed first by

Board A was put 13th by Board B when the man

placed 1st by Board B was 11th with Board A."

37. In this case, the Court also observed that even when the

interviews were conducted by impartial and competent

persons on scientific lines very many uncertain factors like the

initial nervousness on the part of some candidates, the mood

in which the interviewer happens to be and the odd questions

that may be put to the persons interviewed may all go to affect

the result of the interview.

38. This Court in R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore and

Others AIR 1964 SC 1823 observed as under:-

"In the field of education there are divergent views

as regards the mode of testing the capacity and

calibre of students in the matter of admissions to

colleges. Orthodox educationists stand by the

marks obtained by a student in the annual

examination. The modern trend of opinion insists

upon other additional tests, such as interview,

performance in extracurricular activities,

personality test, psychiatric tests, etc. Obviously we

are not in a position to judge which method is

preferable or which test is the correct one. If there

can be manipulation or dishonesty in allotting

marks at interviews, there can equally be

manipulation in the matter of awarding marks in

20

the written examination. In the ultimate analysis,

whatever method is adopted its success depends on

the moral standards of the members constituting

the selection committee and their sense of

objectivity and devotion to duty. This criticism is

more a reflection on the examiners than on the

system itself. The scheme of selection, however,

perfect it may be on paper, may be abused in

practice. That it is capable of abuse is not a ground

for quashing it. So long as the order lays down

relevant objective criteria and entrusts the business

of selection to qualified persons, this Court cannot

obviously have any say in the matter."

39. In Minor A. Peeriakaruppan (supra), the Court referred

to Ajay Hasia's case (supra) where the Court found that the

allocation of more than 15 per cent of the total marks for the

oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would

be liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid. The

Court observed that the viva voce test conducted must be held

to be fair, free from the charge of arbitrariness, reasonable and

just.

40. In Nishi Maghu & Others v. State of J&K & Others

(1980) 4 SCC 95, the Court observed that 50% marks out of

total 150 marks allotted for interview were excessive.

21 41. In Mehmood Alam Tariq v. State of Rajasthan (1988)

3 SCC 241, the question involved was regarding the validity of

certain provisions of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate

Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive

Examination) Rules, 1962, the Rajasthan Administrative

Service Rules, 1954, the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962

which contained a provision special to the said three services

and not applicable to other services, that candidates, other

than those belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes should secure a minimum of 33 per cent marks in the

viva voce test. The rules further stipulated that the candidates

for these services must also secure 50 per cent marks in the

written examination, but that was not in the area of

controversy. While dealing with the above questions a

reference was made to cases Ajay Hasia (supra), Lila Dhar

(supra) and A.K. Yadav (supra). It was observed as under:

"The much desired transformation from

patronage to open competition is a later

development, to which, now, all civilised

governments profess commitment. However, though

there is agreement in principle that there should be

a search for the best talent particularly in relation

to higher posts, however, as to the methods of

22

assessment of efficiency, promise and aptitude,

ideas and policies widely vary, though it has now

come to be accepted that selection is an informed

professional exercise which is best left to agencies

independent of the services to which recruitment is

made. The `interview' is now an accepted aid to

selection and is designed to give the selectors some

evidence of the personality and character of the

candidates. Macaulay had earlier clearly declared

that a young man who in competition with his

fellowmen of the same age had shown superiority in

studies might well be regarded as having shown

character also since he could not have prepared

himself for the success attained without showing

character in eschewing sensual pleasures. But the

interview came to be recognised as an essential part

of the process of selection on the belief that some

qualities necessary and useful to public servants

which cannot be found out in a written test would

be revealed in a viva voce examination. In

justification of the value and utility of the viva voce,

the committee on Class I examinations in Britain

said:

...It is sometimes urged that a candidate,

otherwise well qualified, may be

prevented by nervousness from doing

himself justice in viva voce. We are not

sure that such lack of nervous control is

not in itself a serious defect, nor that the

presence of mind and nervous equipoise

which enables a candidate to marshall all

of his resources in such conditions is not

a valuable quality. Further, there are

undoubtedly some candidates who can

never do themselves justice in written

examinations, just as there are others

who under the excitement of written

competition do better than on ordinary

occasions.... We consider that the viva

voce can be made a test of the

candidate's alertness, intelligence and

23

intellectual outlook, and as such is better

than any other....

42. As to the promise as well as the limitations of the

viva voce, Herman Finer says:

If we really care about the efficiency

of the civil service as an instrument of

government, rather than as a heaven sent

opportunity to find careers for our

brilliant students, these principles should

be adopted. The interview should last at

least half an hour on each of the two

separate occasions. It should be also

entirely devoted to a discussion ranging

over the academic interests of the

candidate as shown in his examination

syllabus, and a short verbal report could

be required on the subject, the scope of

which would be announced at the

interview. As now, the interview should

be a supplementary test and not a

decisive selective test. The interviewing

board should include a business

administrator and a university

administrator. The interview should come

after and not before the written

examination, and if this means some

inconvenience to candidates and

examiners, then they must remember

that they are helping to select the

government of a great State, and a little

inconvenience is not to be weighed

against such a public duty....""

43. In Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab & Others

(1991) 1 SCC 662, allocation of 25 per cent of total marks for

viva voce test in selection was held arbitrary and excessive. 24

44. In P. Mohanan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Others

(2007) 9 SCC 497, 50% marks were fixed for the interview.

The Court observed as under:

"16. In this case allocation of marks for interview

was in fact misused. It not only contravened the

ratio laid down by this Court in Ashok Kumar

Yadav and subsequent cases, but in the facts and

circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to draw

an inference of favouritism. The power in this case

has been used by the appointing authority for

unauthorised purpose. When a power is exercised

for an unauthorised purpose, the same would

amount to malice in law. (See: Govt. Branch Press

v. D.B. Belliappa (1979) 1 SCC 477, Punjab SEB

Ltd. v. Zora Singh (2005) 6 SCC 776 and K.K.

Bhalla v. State of M.P (2006) 3 SCC 581)."

45. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at

length and have carefully perused the impugned judgment and

the orders of the Tribunal.

46. In our considered view, no interference is called for, on

account of following reasons:-

(A) Promotion to the post of Principal Scientist

pertains to the "Career Advancement Scheme".

Norms, Rules and Guidelines which are

25

employed while granting the benefit of Career

Advancement Scheme ought to be applied in

the instant case.

(B) It is amply clear that the quinquennial

assessment scheme for the ICAR/ARS Policies

and Rules were-

a) for providing opportunities for the

career advancement, irrespective of

the occurrence of vacancies, through

a system of assessment should lead

to each scientist competing with his

or her rather than with colleagues

and to the acceptance of the principle

the "all the rights accrue from a duty

well done".

b) Enable scientists to get the highest

salary possible, within the system

while remaining rooted to work in

their respective discipline/field,

26

thereby eliminating both the undue

importance attached in the past to

research management policy and the

request for such positions purely for

the advancement of salary.

c) Link rights and responsibilities and

instill through the five-year

assessment system the conviction

that dedicated and efficient discharge

of responsibilities alone would be the

means of securing professional

advancement.

47. The respondent was not disclosed by the appellant either

that the interview would be held for evaluating personal or

intellectual qualities that attribute a Scientist and that it shall

carry 50% of the total marks. This is uncontroverted position.

Had the appellants disclosed the method of evaluation the

respondent may have challenged the same before participating

in the selection process.

27 48. No fault can be found in the impugned judgment in view

of the legal position which emerges after proper scrutiny of

following cases of this Court, namely, Ashok Kumar Yadav

(supra), Ajay Hasia (supra), Lila Dhar (supra) and Minor A.

Peeriakaruppan (supra). 50% marks allocated for the

interview were highly excessive for the post of a Principal

Scientist and contrary to the settled legal position crystallized

from a series of the judgments of this court.

49. The appellants were totally unjustified in allocating 50%

marks for the interview particularly when the appellants did

not even disclose to the respondent that the interview would

also be held to evaluate suitability of the candidate for the said

post.

50. The procedure evolved by the Selection Committee for

evaluating the respondent was totally arbitrary and contrary to

the settled legal position.

51. The appellants themselves have found 50% marks for

interview highly excessive, therefore, now the criterion has

28

been changed from 50% to 10%. This is indicative of the fact

that good sense had ultimately dawned on the appellants.

52. The appeal is totally devoid of any merit and is

accordingly dismissed with costs which are quantified as

50,000/-. The costs to be paid to the respondent within four

weeks.

..............................................J.

(DALVEER BHANDARI)

..............................................J.

(DEEPAK VERMA)

New Delhi;

March 30, 2011

29