- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Anupam Garg v. District Judge Office Of District Sessions Judge
Structured Summary of the Opinion (Manmohan Singh, J.) — May 26, 2010
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the respondent to recall or modify the results of candidates selected for interview in the LDC (Lower Division Clerk) Recruitment Test, 2009. The respondent had published a notification for filling LDC vacancies with a mode of selection comprising: a written test in English, a typing test at 30 words per minute in English, and an interview for candidates who qualified earlier stages.
The petitioner, a graduate student, participated in the recruitment process. He was issued Roll No. 5159, took the written test (scheduled 7.3.2010), and obtained 93 marks out of 100 in the written examination as per the declared result dated 12.4.2010. He then appeared for the typing test held on 25.4.2010 and obtained 20 marks out of 30. Although an annexure (Annexure R-1) prescribed minimum qualifying marks of 20 for the typing test, the petitioner was not included in the list of candidates called for interview. The petitioner alleged that the respondent changed the cut-off for the typing test from 20 to 22 marks post-examination and sought relief on the ground that such a change, made without reasons, was illegal.
The respondent filed a short affidavit (of Durga Prasad, Superintendent) and produced the notification/Employment News page. The court heard submissions and delivered an oral judgment dismissing the petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent unlawfully changed the selection criteria after the examination by increasing the cut-off in the typing test (from 20/30 to 22/30), thereby excluding the petitioner from being called for interview.
- Whether any post-notification change in the selection criteria (if it occurred) without reasons would be illegal, arbitrary or contrary to principles of equity and transparency.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The respondent changed the selection criteria after the written and typing tests by increasing the cut-off for the typing test from 20/30 to 22/30, without assigning any reasons.
- Such a post-examination change was illegal and arbitrary because the notification had fixed the selection criteria; selection criteria once finalized and published cannot be changed during or after the selection process.
- Many candidates with lower marks in the written examination than the petitioner were called for interview, indicating arbitrariness in selection.
- The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008 AIR 9SC 2103) to support the proposition that introducing a minimum for viva-voce after the written test is impermissible.
Respondent's Arguments
- The selection procedure followed the notification and Annexure R-1, which prescribed the typing test procedure and stated maximum marks of 30 with minimum qualifying marks of 20.
- The petitioner scored only 20 marks in the typing test and, based on the actual distribution of marks and shortlisting, many candidates who scored between 20 and 21.5 were not called for interview because they did not reach the cut-off required to be within the shortlists; historically the last cut-off in the three-times vacancies reached 22 marks for the General category.
- The exclusion of the petitioner from the interview list was due to his insufficient typing-test marks relative to the shortlisting cut-off; there was no post-notification change in criteria and no arbitrariness in the conduct of the respondent.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, 2008 AIR 9 SC 2103 | The proposition cited: if no minimum marks for viva-voce/interview are prescribed before commencement of selection, the authority cannot add such a minimum during or after the selection process; prescribing minimum marks for viva-voce after the written test is impermissible. | The court considered the authority of the precedent but found it inapplicable on facts: the court held that the facts of the present case differ and that the selection criteria, as reflected in the notification and Annexure R-1, were not changed after the advertisement; therefore the precedent did not help the petitioner. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded in a step-by-step factual and legal review based on the notification, the testing procedure (Annexure R-1), the declared results, and the short affidavit filed by the respondent:
- Examination of the notification and published mode of selection: The notification set out a three-stage selection—written test (English paper), typing test at 30 w.p.m. for those declared qualified in the English paper, and interview for shortlisted candidates who passed the typing test.
- Review of Annexure R-1 (the checking practice for the typing test): Annexure R-1 provided that a 300-word passage be typed in ten minutes, with rules for marking (one mark deducted for three mistakes, repetitions rewarded, maximum marks 30, and minimum qualifying marks 20).
- Evaluation of the petitioner's performance: The petitioner obtained 93/100 in the written test and 20/30 in the typing test; Annexure R-1 indicates that 20 was the minimum qualifying mark for the typing test.
- Consideration of historical cut-off behavior: The court noted that in the past three rounds (three-times vacancies) the last cut-off for the General category reached 22 marks, whereas for other categories it was 20. Thus, the practical shortlisting cut-off in the relevant recruitment cycle had been 22 for General category.
- Assessment of allegation of post-notification change: The court found no evidence that the respondent altered the published selection criteria after advertisement. The mode of selection as published contemplated shortlisting on the basis of marks in the typing test; the fact that the operational cut-off for calling candidates (in that cycle) reached 22 did not amount to a post-hoc change inconsistent with the notification.
- On the precedential argument: The court considered Hemani Malhotra but held that those principles did not assist the petitioner because the factual matrix differed (Hemani addressed adding a minimum for viva-voce where none had been prescribed before selection).
- On alleged arbitrariness: The court noted the petitioner did not identify any specific candidate with equal or lower typing-test marks who was nevertheless called for interview; nor did the petitioner dispute that many candidates in the 93–98 written-marks range were also not called. The court accepted respondent's explanation that the petitioner’s typing-test score was below the operational cut-off used for shortlisting.
The court therefore concluded that there was no post-notification alteration of selection criteria, and that the exclusion of the petitioner resulted from the shortlisting process and the operative cut-off in that recruitment cycle rather than any unlawful or arbitrary change in criteria.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The petition is dismissed. The court dismissed the petition as lacking merit and disposed of the interim application. The order was given with no orders as to costs.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The petitioner remains excluded from the interview list and receives no relief; the respondent's selection process and shortlisting for the LDC Recruitment Test, 2009, as implemented in that recruitment cycle, stands.
- On precedent and broader legal consequences: The court expressly stated that the cited precedent (Hemani Malhotra) did not assist the petitioner because of factual differences; the judgment did not purport to create or alter law beyond applying settled principles to the facts. No new precedent or novel legal principle was announced by this decision.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction against the respondent to recall/modify the result of candidates selected for interview for LDC Recruitment Test, 2009.
2. The petitioner is currently pursuing his graduate studies in B.A Political Science (Honours) from Satyawati College, University of Delhi, and has appeared for the final examination of Second Year. The petitioner has obtained 72% in his Senior Secondary Examination and has currently secured an aggregate of 57% in his graduate studies.
3. The respondent had by way of public notification advertised
for filling up the vacancies of Lower Division Clerk in the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- pre-revised as per the terms and directions detailed in the notification.
4. The petitioner has given the detail of notification allegedly advertised for filling up vacancies. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed a photocopy of the relevant page of the Employment News dated 11.12.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection if the same is considered by this Court. The mode of selections is given in the said notification as under:
Mode of Selection Selection shall be made on the basis of
Written Test examination comprising of one paper in English language (Essay, Grammar and translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa). The candidates, who will be declared qualified in English language paper will be called to appear for typing test @ 30 w.p.m in English. The short listed candidate would also undergo an interview (The candidates will have to arrange their own Type Writers for taking the test)
5. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the said post and was issued Roll No. 5159 vide letter dated 11.2.2010 by the respondent for a written test which was scheduled for 7.3.2010 The petitioner qualified the written test with 93% marks as per the result declared on 12.4.2010
6. After having been declared successful in the examination, the petitioner received intimation for the purpose of a typing test for the recruitment of post of LDC which was to be held on 25.4.2010
7. The petitioner appeared in the said typing test and obtained
20 marks and his result of the said typing test was shown at Serial No. 109. However, his name did not figure in the list of candidates called for interview despite the petitioner having secured 93 marks out of 100 in the written test examination and 20 marks out of 30 in the typing test for which as per initial information averred by the petitioner, the bench mark was set at 20 out of 30 marks. Admittedly, the bench mark/ cut off set by the respondent to be called for an interview was 20 marks in typing test with 45% in the written test.
8. According to the petitioner, the respondent has changed the criteria for selecting candidates for interview by changing the cut off marks from 20 out of 30.
9. The main contention of the petitioner during the course of arguments was that the said change of criteria in the post-examination period is illegal as no reasons have been given by the respondent for such a change. There ought to have been no change in the selection criteria especially without assigning any reason thereto as selection criteria once finalised cannot be changed once notification in that regard has already been published. It is argued that a mere perusal of list of candidates who have been called for interview would show that many candidates with lower marks in written examination than that of the petitioner have been invited for interview for the appointment of LDC.
10. According to the petitioner, the respondent has changed the criteria for selecting the candidates for interview by changing the cut off rate to 22 marks out of 30 marks for typing text against the initially decided cut off rate of 20 marks out of 30 marks. His grievance is that
despite having obtained 93% marks in the written examination and 20 out of 30 marks in the typing test he has not been called for an interview and therefore, the conduct of the respondent is illegal, unlawful and arbitrary.
11. In support of his submissions, the petitioner has referred the judgment of Hemani Malhotra v. High Court Of Delhi, 2008 AIR 9SC 2103 wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 observed as under:
“9. From the proposition of law laid down by this court in the above mentioned case it is evident that previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for vivevoce. Therefore, prescribing minimum marks for vive-voce was not permissible at all after written test was conduced. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and vive-voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for vive-voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at vive-voce, test was illegal.”
12. The respondent has filed the short affidavit of Sh. Durga Prasad, Superintendent Administration Branch, Office of District Judge-I & Sessions Judge, Delhi.
13. Admittedly, in order to judge the suitability of the candidates in the typing test, the procedure as prescribed in Annexure R-1 was followed which reads as under:
“Practice which may be followed for checking answer sheets of Type Test for LDC Recruitment Test 2009 in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Delhi.
A passage for about 300 words has been given to the candidates to be typed in ten minutes. If he falls short of the said passage, number of words by which answer sheet
falls short may be taken as mistake and one mark may be deducted for three mistakes. The maximum marks are 30 out of which minimum qualifying marks are 20.
If the candidate repeats the passage, he may be given one additional mark for every ten words typed by him.
While checking one mark may be deducted for every three mistakes. Mistakes also include punctuation, spelling error.”
14. It appears from Annexure R-1 that a candidate who qualifies the typing test with 20 marks would be called for the interview but admittedly in the last three times, the last cut off reached 22 marks for General and SC category and other category at 20 marks. Therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner was not called for interview.
15. It is not denied by the petitioner that as per the result, there are many candidates who have secured 93 to 98 marks but have not been called for the interview. Similarly the petitioner has not pointed out the detail of a single candidate in the selection process who obtained similar marks i.e 20 marks or lesser than those of the petitioner and was still called for the interview.
16. As per notification, passing the typing test was necessary for LDC candidates irrespective of the fact that a candidate secured high marks in written test. As per procedure, if the candidate does not come within cut off marks set for the typing test, he is not eligible. Admittedly, between 20 to 21.5 marks there are 139 candidates who have not been called for interview as they did not achieve the target of cut off marks of passing of typing test.
17. The selection process was of three stages : stage one was written examination; stage two the candidates qualifying the English
language paper were to appear for the typing test @ 30 words per minute in English and the third stage wherein the shortlisted candidates who passed the typing test were to be called for interview.
18. As per the advertisement for filling up the vacancies and eligibility criteria for recruitment, candidates with minimum qualifying marks of 45% for general category and 40% for reserved categories in written examination were to be called for the typing test and three times were to be called for the interview. Undisputedly, in the three times vacancies the last cut off reached 22 marks for general category in which the petitioner applied for the post. Thus, it appears that cut off criteria for interview as adopted by the respondent was in compliance with the terms mentioned in the ‘Term C’ of the advertisement.
19. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that as per selection criteria, the typing test of 30 words per minute was taken by the petitioner but after the test it was found that there were many mistakes in the typing test and he was only able to obtain 20 marks which was below the cut off mark, hence question of arbitrariness does not arise.
20. After having gone through the entire gamut of the matter, this Court does not find itself agreeing with the submissions of the petitioner that the respondent changed the selection criteria rather, it is evident from the paragraph stating the mode of selection that the shortlisted candidates were also to undergo an interview after the publication of the notification. A plain reading of mode of selection shows that the typing test @ 30 words per minute in English was conducted by the respondent
as regards the candidates who qualified the written test examination and the candidates who qualified in the typing test were called for interview as per the shortlisting on the basis of marks obtained in the typing test. Therefore, it is apparent that the selection criteria as it appeared in the notification has been not changed after the advertisement against the principle of equity and transparency. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force in view of the reasons mentioned above. The decision referred hence does not help the case of the petitioner as the facts in the present case are entirely different.
21. There is no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed with no orders as to cost. The interim application also stands disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
May 26, 2010 jk
Alert