- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Tessy Abraham v. Anithakumary. K.S.
Factual and Procedural Background
Applications were invited for appointment by transfer to the post of Women Protection Officers in the Social Welfare Department (notification dated 3.3.2009, produced as Ext.P1). The initial notification (Ext.P1) did not prescribe the method of selection. Subsequently, the Director of Social Welfare issued Ext.R5(b) on 23.7.2009 prescribing the method of selection: a written test (70 marks) and interview (30 marks), with 10 marks out of the 30 earmarked for a computer aptitude test. A written test was held on 21.3.2010, a short list was prepared, and shortlisted candidates were called for interview. Interview call letters (Ext.P6) expressly informed candidates that 10 marks in the interview would be for the computer aptitude test.
The first respondent (petitioner in the writ petition) participated in the written test and interview and scored 4 out of 10 in the computer aptitude test. On publication of the final rank list, the first respondent's rank declined relative to other candidates who scored higher in the computer aptitude test. The first respondent filed a writ petition contending that the computer aptitude test was prescribed subsequently and was unauthorized, seeking that the selection be declared invalid or that the computer aptitude component be struck down.
The learned Single Judge, relying on several decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, held that the method of selection was changed by the selection committee by including the computer aptitude test subsequently and cancelled the selections. The Single Judge directed fresh selection based on written test and interview by excluding the computer aptitude marks. One of the successful candidates challenged that order by filing the present writ appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether prescription of a computer aptitude test (10 marks out of 100) after the advertisement inviting applications but before commencement of the selection process vitiates the selection.
- Whether inclusion of new selection norms after commencement of the selection process (if proved) would invalidate the selection — specifically, whether the first respondent can challenge the selection on the ground that the computer aptitude test was included subsequently.
- Whether a candidate who has participated in the entire selection process (written test and interview, including the computer aptitude test) can be permitted to challenge the selection merely because she obtained lower marks in one component.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Single Judge's finding that the selection committee prescribed new norms after inviting applications was factually incorrect.
- The decisions relied upon by the Single Judge and the first respondent (to show that new norms cannot be added after commencement) are not applicable here because no new norms were prescribed to the detriment of the first respondent.
- Reference was made to an Annexure I judgment (of the same Single Judge) where another similar writ petition was dismissed on the ground of estoppel (that a candidate who participated in the process is estopped from challenging it). The appellant argued that the Single Judge applied inconsistent norms in disposing of two petitions relating to the same selection.
- The first respondent, having participated in the entire selection process (written test and interview, including the computer aptitude test), cannot challenge the selection merely because she scored only 4/10 in the computer aptitude test.
First Respondent's Arguments
- The computer aptitude test was prescribed subsequently (after the notification inviting applications) and therefore was unauthorized; its inclusion invalidates the selection or at least that component should be declared illegal.
- Reliance was placed upon several authorities, particularly the Supreme Court decision in Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi (2010 AIR SCW 946), for the proposition that after the commencement of a selection process no new norms can be included subsequently and that doing so invalidates the selection.
Other Respondents / Party Respondents
- Counsel for the party respondents supported the appellant's position that the first respondent, having participated fully, cannot challenge the selection on account of a low score in the computer aptitude test.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi (2010 AIR SCW 946) | Principle that after the commencement of a selection process no new norms may be introduced subsequently; such inclusion, if done, will invalidate the selection. | The Court considered this authority relied upon by the first respondent but held it inapplicable to the present facts because the method of selection (Ext.R5(b)) was prescribed before the commencement of the selection process (the written test). Accordingly, the principle in Ramesh Kumar did not invalidate the selection in this case. |
| Annexure I (judgment of the same Single Judge referenced in the appeal) | Used in argument to demonstrate estoppel — that a candidate who participates in a selection process is estopped from later challenging it. | The appellant relied on this judgment to argue inconsistency in the Single Judge's orders. The appellate court noted the existence of that judgment but distinguished the present case on the basis that the selection norms were prescribed before commencement and the first respondent had participated in and accepted the process. |
| Other decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court (unnamed in the opinion) | General support for the principle that changing selection norms after commencement can vitiate selection (as relied upon by the Single Judge). | The Single Judge relied on such decisions to cancel the selections. The appellate court found those authorities not applicable on the facts because the selection norms (Ext.R5(b)) were prescribed prior to the commencement of the selection process and interview call letters properly notified the computer aptitude component. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the sequence of events and documentary record. It noted that Ext.P1 (inviting applications) did not set out the method of selection, but Ext.R5(b) (dated 23.7.2009) prescribed the method (written test — 70 marks; interview — 30 marks; with 10 marks for computer aptitude). The written test took place on 21.3.2010; therefore, Ext.R5(b) was issued before the commencement of the selection process.
The Court emphasized that the interview letters (Ext.P6) sent to shortlisted candidates specifically incorporated the condition in Ext.R5(b) that 10 marks out of 30 for the interview were for the computer aptitude test. The first respondent participated in each stage of the process — the written test, the interview and the computer aptitude component — and obtained 4 out of 10 in the computer aptitude test.
The Court analyzed the first respondent's challenge in two interconnected ways:
- Temporal aspect: whether the computer aptitude test was added after the process had commenced. The Court found that the method of selection was prescribed (via Ext.R5(b)) prior to commencement of the selection (the written examination), so the computer aptitude test was not a post-commencement change.
- Voluntariness / estoppel aspect: whether a candidate who voluntarily participated in the entire selection process can later challenge a component because she performed poorly in it. The Court held that the first respondent, having participated in all stages and accepted the process (including being notified of the computer aptitude component), could not challenge the selection simply because she did not score highly in that component.
The Court further noted the administrative context: government circulars (Circular No. 119.DPI/2007.LSGD dated 13.1.2007 and G.O(MS) No. 168/2007.LSGD dated 25.6.2007) provided that government employees, including those in the Municipal Common Service to which the first respondent belongs, had been given computer training by IMG. That demonstrated that minimum computer familiarity was a reasonable criterion and that the first respondent herself had some training but scored 4/10, reflecting her capacity on the test.
The Court therefore concluded that there was no irregularity, illegality or impropriety in prescribing Ext.R5(b) before the selection began and in conducting the selection strictly in accordance with those norms. The Court also rejected the first respondent's contention that she was not given time to prepare for the computer aptitude test on account of short notice.
Holding and Implications
Core Ruling: The writ appeal is allowed; the judgment of the learned Single Judge is vacated and the writ petition is dismissed. The selection and rank list for appointment to the post of Women Protection Officers are upheld.
Implications:
- Direct effect: The selections as made (including the computer aptitude component of 10 marks) and the published rank list remain valid and effective; the successful candidates retain their selections.
- Scope of precedent: The Court found that the authorities relied upon by the Single Judge (including Ramesh Kumar) were not applicable on the facts because the selection norms were prescribed prior to commencement of the selection process. The opinion does not purport to lay down a new or broader precedent beyond its factual conclusions: it confirms that prescribing selection criteria after inviting applications but before the start of the selection process does not automatically vitiate the selection, and that a candidate who voluntarily participates in the full process cannot ordinarily challenge merely because of a poor score in one component.
Judgment
Ramachandran Nair, J.
This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge setting aside the selection made to the post of Women Protection Officers in the Social Welfare Department of the Government of Kerala for the reason that the method of selection was subsequently changed by the selection committee by including computer aptitude test.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, counsel appearing for the first respondent(the petitioner in the writ petition), learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the counsel appearing for the party respondents, who took notice on admission.
3. Applications for selection to the post of Women Protection Officers in the Social Welfare Department were invited from the employees of the Government Departments on appointment by transfer basis prescribing educational qualifications and the period of service required alternatively in the Class III cadre. Even though the method of selection was not prescribed in the notification dated 3.3.2009 produced as Ext.P1 in the writ petition, subsequently, the Director of Social Welfare issued Ext.R5(b) on 23.7.2009 wherein the method of selection was prescribed. It is seen from Ext.R5(b) that a written test has to be conducted for selection and the same was entrusted with a Government agency, namely, I.M.G Out of 100, 70 marks were provided for written examination and 30 marks for interview. Under clause 3 of Ext.R5(b), out of 30 provided for interview, 10 marks were provided for computer aptitude test. Pursuant to the notification inviting applications and based on Ext.R5(b) prescribed subsequently, written test was held on 21.3.2010 Based on the marks obtained in the written test, a short list was prepared and the candidates included in the short list were called for interview. While sending the interview cards, copy of which received by the 1st respondent in the writ appeal who is the petitioner in the writ petition, is produced as Ext.P6, the authorities specifically incorporated the condition in Ext.R5(b) that 10 marks in the interview is for computer aptitude test. Ext.P6 dated 6.7.2010 was issued to the first respondent who came out successfully in the written test and in response to the same, she along with other successful candidates participated in the interview. She got 4 marks out of 10 in the computer aptitude test. When the final rank list was published, the 1st respondent went down in the rank list while several others who scored better were placed above her. At this stage, the 1st respondent filed writ petition contending that the computer aptitude test prescribed subsequently is unauthorised and therefore selection is invalid or at least that part of the selection process involving computer aptitude test should be declared illegal. The learned Single Judge by relying on several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this court held that method of selection is changed by the selection committee by including the computer aptitude test subsequently and therefore he cancelled the selections. The learned Single Judge after cancelling the computer aptitude test, directed fresh selection based on marks obtained in the written test and interview, that is by excluding the marks obtained by all candidates in the computer aptitude test. It is against this judgment, one of the successful candidates who got selection filed this writ appeal.
4. The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the findings of the learned Single Judge that the selection committee prescribed new norms after inviting applications for selection to the post of Women Protection Officers is factually incorrect. The next contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the decisions relied on by the learned Single Judge and the counsel for the 1st respondent are not applicable in this case in as much as no new norms are prescribed for selection after inviting applications to the detriment of the first respondent. Counsel for the appellant also referred to Annexure I judgment of the very same Single Judge dismissing another writ petition filed by another candidate challenging the very same selection for the reason that after participating in the selection process, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the selection. According to the appellant, the learned Single Judge applied different norms while disposing two writ petitions filed challenging the very same selection. Counsel for the party respondents also supported the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and contended that the 1st respondent having participated in the entire selection process by writing the written test, attended the interview and participated in the computer aptitude test cannot be permitted to challenge the selection for the reason that she got only 4 out of 10 marks in computer aptitude test.
5. During admission of writ appeal, we heard all the parties in detail and also perused the judgment. Before us, counsel for the first respondent has relied on several decisions, particularly the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi (2010 AIR SCW 946) and contended that after the commencement of the selection process, no new norms could be included subsequently and the same, if done, will invalidate the selection.
6. From the facts stated above, what is clear is that the selection was proposed from among the Government employees and Ext.P1 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Women Protection Officers did not prescribe any method of selection. None of the applicants who applied for the post including the 1st respondent have a case that the notification inviting applications without prescribing method of selection is invalid. In fact, the method of selection was prescribed by the Social Welfare Department as per Ext.R5(b) which includes prescription of 10 marks for computer aptitude test. The first respondent, who after participating in the entire selection process and after getting enrolled in the rank list challenged the selection process only to the extent of prescription of 10 marks in the computer aptitude test. This is done obviously because she got only 4 out of 10 marks in the computer aptitude test while some others got higher marks, even upto 9 out of 10. The first question to be considered is whether the first respondent who participated in the whole selection process and got in the rank list, though quite low in position should be allowed to challenge the selection merely because she did not get high marks in the computer aptitude test, but got only 40% marks. Obviously, if she had got selection, she would not have challenged the selection process. In fact some candidates who got lower marks in the computer aptitude test than the first respondent got higher position in the rank list by scoring higher marks in the written test and interview. What we notice in this case is that while inviting applications, method of selection was not prescribed. However, prior to the commencement of the selection process, method of selection was prescribed vide Ext.R5(b) wherein written test and interview including computer aptitude test were prescribed. Consistent with the norms prescribed in Ext.R5(b), written test was conducted and the 1st respondent who contested the selection also does not want to challenge the written test though Ext.P1 notification inviting application did not provide for written test. In fact, she has participated in the whole selection process. All what she challenges is the assignment of 10 marks for computer aptitude test. We are of the view that the selection is not vitiated by any irregularity, illegality or impropriety because norms were prescribed much before the commencement of the selection process vide Ext.R5(b). In fact, selections were also made strictly in accordance with Ext.R5(b) norms which among other things provided 10 marks for computer aptitude test. The first respondent, in our view, after participating in the written examination and interview and after obtained 4 marks out of 10 in the computer aptitude test cannot challenge the selection process merely because she got low rank compared to some other candidates.
7. Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice Circular No. 119.DPI/2007.LSGD dated 13.1.2007 and G.O(MS) No. 168/2007.LSGD dated 25.6.2007 issued by the Government wherein all the employees in Government service including those in Municipal Common Service to which the first respondent belongs were given computer training by IMG. Obviously and admittedly the first respondent who contested the selection is also trained in handling computer and in the computer aptitude test, she got 4 marks out of 10 which proves her capacity and familiarity in handling computers. We do not think that the first respondent is entitled to challenge the computer aptitude test because some other candidates got higher marks than her in the said test. In fact, it is common knowledge that in these days nobody can successfully run any office without minimum knowledge in computer operations. It is seen that out of 100 marks only 10 marks were provided for computer aptitude test and in our view, even without prescribing any norms, it is for the interview board to give weightage to those who are familiar with computer and computer applications. We are of the view that the decisions relied on including the decision cited above have no application in this case because the Government have not changed the method of appointment after commencement of the selection process. What we notice is that selection norms were prescribed after inviting applications, but, before the commencement of the selection process which started with written examination. Besides prescribing norms for selection vide Ext.R5(b), in the interview letters forwarded to the candidates including the first respondent, copy of which is produced as Ext.P6, it is made clear that 10 marks out of 30 for interview will be for computer aptitude test. The first respondent after having participated in the interview and undergone the computer aptitude test has challenged the computer aptitude test only because she got low rank compared to some others. We do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the counsel for the first respondent that she was not given time to prepare for computer aptitude test on account of short notice for the test.
8. For the reasons stated above, we uphold the selection and rank list prepared for appointment to the post of Women Protection Officers. Consequently, Writ Appeal is allowed vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge and by dismissing the Writ Petition.
Alert