Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1492 of 2000
PETITIONER:
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TPT. CORPORATION & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAJENDRA BHIMRAO MANDVE & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/11/2001
BENCH:
S Rajendra Babu & Doraiswamy Raju
JUDGMENT:
RAJU, J.
The appellants, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and
authorities of the said Corporation, challenge the judgment dated 7.5.1997 of the
Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in W.P. No.2053 of 1996, sustaining a
challenge made to the selection list for appointment of Drivers displayed on
26.7.1996 and as a consequence thereof, set aside the said selection list while
declaring that the claims of the ten petitioners are also to be considered for
selection to the post of Drivers. In coming to the said conclusion, the Division
Bench of the High Court held that the claims have to be considered in terms of
Circular No.15/95 dated 4.4.1995 which was said to be in force when the
applications were called for and that Circular No.17/96 dated 24.6.1996 has got
to be ignored as being arbitrary, illegal and, at any rate, not retrospective in
effect.
The third appellant issued an advertisement, inviting applications for the
posts of Drivers and Conductors in the Newspapers on 20.9.1995, and the ten
persons, who were petitioners before the High Court, applied for the post of
Drivers along with several others. Since the Writ Petitioners were found to
satisfy the requisite qualifications and experience, they were called for Driving
Test held on 27.11.1995. Since they also were said to have passed the Driving
Test, were again called for personal interview by a Letter dated 3.7.1996, which
was held on 26.7.1996. Thereafter, the selection list was also said to have been
displayed by the third respondent on 26.7.1996. The grievance of the Writ
Petitioners before the High Court was that the Selection Committee, which
conducted the personal interview, exercised the power of allotment of 25%
marks, arbitrarily and in such a manner that the marks obtained in the Driving
Test lost significance. It was also the grievance of the Writ Petitioners that the
Circulars, which really should govern the selection, are those dated 23.1.1995
and 4.4.1995 and not the one dated 24.6.1996. As noticed earlier, the grievance
espoused found favour of acceptance with the High Court, resulting in this
appeal.
Shri Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General, for the appellants
and Shri Shrish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the private party respondents,
were heard. We have been taken through the different Circular Orders on which
either party staked their respective claims and contentions. Certain case law
was also brought to our notice. We have carefully considered the submissions of
the learned counsel on either side.
During the relevant point of time and in respect of the selections in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
question, there are no statutory Rules or Regulations to govern the selections
and it is the common stand that only Circular Orders issued by the Corporation
governed the same. Circular No.52 of 1980 dated 21.8.1980 contained
instructions relating to the constitution of Screening Committees for selection of
Drivers with effect from 1.11.1980, at the Regional Level and the procedure to be
adopted therefor. The same was provided for initial screening of candidates with
reference to the applications submitted by verification of the credentials on the
basis of qualifications and past experience. Thereupon, the candidates have to
undergo physical examination in respect of height, weight, measurements, etc.
Thereafter, one has to undergo Driving Test and finally Personal Interview. The
next Circular relevant and brought to our notice is dated 23.1.1995 and in this
Circular, after adverting to the Resolution of the Board of the Corporation dated
26.8.1992 in para 4, it was stated as follows:-
Taking into consideration the above facts, it is informed by
this circular again that the procedure laid down by the
Corporation in the matter of taking into consideration 60%
marks obtained in the written test / trade test and 40% marks
obtained in their personal interview, both should be taken
into consideration while preparing the final selection list, and
this procedure should be followed strictly. The same
procedure should be followed while preparing the final
selection list for the post of Driver. The final list of the marks
obtained during the test taken by the second Scrutiny
Committee will be required for preparing the final selection
list. Therefore, the said list of the marks obtained should be
treated as confidential and should be in the custody of the
Divisional Controller. After the meeting of the sub-selection
committee is over, the final selection list should be prepared
after giving weightage of 60% as instructed earlier.
There can be no controversy or dispute over those Circular Orders.
The serious dispute and controversy raised relates to the claim of the
Corporation that the Circular No.17 of 1996 dated 24.6.1996, only came to be
issued by way of clarification and it was not only necessary to be issued but also
governed the selection of Drivers in question. The Writ Petitioners, who were
unsuccessful, asserted that it is the Circular dated 4.4.1995 which should govern
the selection and consequently the selections ought to have been made by
assigning 87½% marks for Written/Trade Test and 12½% for the oral test
(Personal Interview) and results declared, accordingly. On going through the
above Circular Orders, we find that the procedure for recruitment of Drivers is
separate from recruitment for other categories where Written Test/Trade Test
has been specifically laid down and that it is only where the Written Test and
Interview are stipulated, the percentage of weightage for Written Test/Interview
has been resolved by the Board, under the directions of the State Government,
to be fixed at 87.5% and 12.5% respectively. The directions of the State
Government in their Letter dated 2.1.1995 only fixes the weightage to be given
between marks obtained in Written Test and those in Interview and no reference
is found therein of any Trade Test or Driving Test. The Resolution of the Board
dated 21.3.1995 also seems to be on the same lines and is with reference to
marks obtained in Written Test and Interview respectively and not otherwise.
Apparently, in view of the above and in the absence of reference to Driving Test
or other Trade Test too, that the Corporation claims to have issued the Circular
Order No. 17/1996 dated 24.6.1996, on the basis of the earlier Circulars
Nos.52/80 for pass in Driving Test to be presented to the S.T. Committee and
25/90 dated 2.7.1990 pertaining to award of marks in the Interview, by fixing the
average of the marks awarded by the S.T. Sub-Committee to be the final and
deciding factor in the matter of selection of a candidate. Therefore, the High
Court cannot be said to be correct in holding that the Circular Order dated
24.6.1996 is illegal or arbitrary or against the orders of the State Government or
the Resolution of the Board of the Transport Corporation. Instead, it would have
been well open to the High Court to have declared that the criteria sought to be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
fixed by the Circular dated 24.6.1996 as the sole determinative of the merit or
grade of a candidate for selection long after the last date fixed for receipt of
application and in the middle of the course of selection process (since in this
case the Driving Test was stated to have been conducted on 27.11.1995) cannot
be applied to the selections under consideration and challenged before the High
Court. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the games of the rules
meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the
authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has
commenced. Therefore, the decision of the High Court, to the extent it
pronounced upon the invalidity of the Circular Orders dated 24.6.1996, does not
merit acceptance in our hand and the same are set aside.
We have held that the Circular Orders dated 24.6.1996 will have no
relevance or application to the selections in question, undertaken pursuant to the
advertisement issued on 20.9.1995. It has also been noticed by us that the
Circular Order dated 4.4.1995, on the face of it, will apply only in cases where the
selection has to be finalized on the basis of any Written Examination and
Interview. There being no Written Examination for selection of Drivers for
appointment, the selection process has to be on the basis of only Circular Orders
dated 21.8.1980 and 23.1.1995. These aspects were left to lie in a nebulous
state, leaving much for assumptions on either side to be possible. This should
have been averted by the Corporation, by proper and appropriate action at the
crucial and relevant point of time before setting the selection process in motion.
It is high time that the Board takes up this for consideration resolve it by an
appropriate decision. For such lapses, neither the candidates, who got selected
and appointed, nor the Writ Petitioners, who lost in the selection, could be
entirely blamed. The Writ Petitioners also have not chosen either to allege or
substantiate any malafides or bias against any member of the Selection
Committee, except making a grievance that within the course of the time
available on a single day about 322 applicants could not have properly subjected
to interview for assessment of merits or assignment of marks for selection. The
learned counsel for the appellants would seek to place reliance upon the
decisions of this Court reported in Sardara Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab &
Ors. [(1991)4 SCC 555] and Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of J & K & Ors.
[(1995)3 SCC 486] to contend that such contentions are not sufficient to warrant
interference with the selections made.
On an overall consideration of all the above noticed factors, we are of the
view that this is a case most suitable for adjustment of equities, taking into
account the fate of the Drivers, who already got appointed and serving all along
though subject to the result of this appeal. The Writ Petitioners are only ten in
number and their claims may be considered for appointment favourably keeping
into account their performance in Driving Test and the marks obtained by them in
the said test and Personal Interview and accommodate them unless they are
medically found unfit to the posts. This would help to give a quietus to the
controversies with reference to the selection on hand and avoid reopening the
selection process to be undertaken afresh, dislocating the persons, who have
been serving for quite some substantial period.
The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and the decision of
the High Court, insofar as it set aside selections published on 26.7.1996, is set
aside. No costs.
J.
(S. Rajendra Babu)
J.
(Doraiswamy Raju)
November 20, 2001.