Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
MANJEET SINGH, UDC AND ORS. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE C
DATE OF JUDGMENT22/03/1990
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
PUNCHHI, M.M.
RAMASWAMY, K.
CITATION:
1990 AIR 1104 1990 SCR (2) 119
1990 SCC (2) 367 JT 1990 (2) 180
1990 SCALE (1)525
ACT:
Employees State Insurance Act, 1948: Sections 2-A. 17(2)
and 97(1) (2) (xx).
Employees State Insurance Corporation--Insurance Inspec-
tor-Recruitment of--Written Test and Interview--No pass
marks prescribed for interview--Selection made on the basis
of 40 marks in the interview held reasonable.
Service Law--Post-Filling up of vacancies--2/3 by promo-
tion and 1/3 by direct recruitment--Panel--Direct Recruit
quota partially filled--Filling of accumulated vacancies
from out of old penal-Desirability of.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent Corporation prepared a panel for the post
of Insurance Inspector, for filling up the direct-recruit
quota, on the basis of written test and interview. In the
absence of prescribed marks for the interview--40% was made
as basic limit for selection.
The unsuccessful candidates challenged their rejection
before the Central Administrative Tribunal contending that
the selection based on 40% marks in the interview was unjus-
tified. Petitions were also filed by the successful candi-
dates seeking directions to the respondent Corporation to
issue appointments pursuant to the panel prepared.
The tribunal directed that a fresh select list be pre-
pared for filling up the remaining vacancies on the basis of
the total marks obtained in the written examination and
interview, in disregard of the qualifying marks of the
interview. Hence this appeal. The successful candidates also
filed a Writ Petition contending that they were entitled to
appointment order since there was no indication of the
expiry of the panel.
Allowing the appeal in part and disposing of the matter,
this Court,
120
HELD: 1. Interview has its own place in the matter of
the selection process and the choice of the candidate. Once
this is recognised, it would be appropriate to require every
candidate to pass the interview test and for that purpose
there should be a basic limit provided. In the absence of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
any prescription of qualifying marks for the interview test
the prescription of 40% as applicable for the written exami-
nation seems to be reasonable. [123C-D]
Rajesh Sood & Or3’. v. Director-General, Employees State
Insurance Corporation & Anr., decided on August 7, 1985,
approved.
2. 50% of the vacancies existing upto 31st December,
1989, relatable to the one-third quota should be filled up
out of the penal after giving credit to appointments already
made. The remaining vacancies should be filled up by holding
of a fresh recruitment examination. The scheme intended for
recruitment should be on the basis of an examination com-
prising of written test and interview. In the oral examina-
tion the pass mark shall be 40% and 40% pass marks shall be
insisted separately for the written as also the oral test
for qualifying in the selection. [123B; D-E]
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Writ Petition No. 226 of
1986.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 1263 of 1990.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.1989 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in T.A. No. 1146
of 1986.
Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Dr. Gauri Shankar, C. Mukopadhya, P.N.
Misra and H.S. Parihar, for the Petitioners.
Madhava Reddy, Vivek Gambhir, S.K. Gambhir, R.D.
Upadhyaya and Surender Karnail for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. Petitioners are employees under the
State Insurance Corporation, respondent no. 1. According to
the notification dated 22nd of April, 1977, issued in exer-
cise of powers
121
conferred by s. 97(1), ( 1, 2)(xxx), s. 2A and s. 17(2) of
the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter re-
ferred to as ’the Act’) which came by way of supersession of
the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Recruitment)
Regulations, 1965, the post of Insurance Inspector/Manager
Grade II was treated partly as selection and partly as
nonselection. There was no age limit for departmental candi-
dates and two-thirds of the vacancies were to be filled up
promotion and onethird by competitive examination under the
Rules. By advertisement dated 6th August, 1983, applications
were invited for filling up the one-third vacancies by
direct recruitment to the category of post of Insurance
Inspector/Manager Grade II. The petitioners in this applica-
tion under Art. 32 of the Constitution responded to the said
advertisement and were in due course declared as successful
in the test. In consideration of the fact that a good number
of vacancies were then existing and in anticipation of the
position that more vacancies were about to occur, a select
list was drawn up for the existing and future vacancies. In
the said select list petitioners featured at Sr. nos. 114,
116, 121, 159, 171, 172 and 188 respectively. The panel was
notified and in accordance with the practice petitioners
along with other successful candidates were individually
intimated by respondent no. 2 on 1.9.1984.
As already, indicated, the direct recruitment was on the
basis of examination and interview. The advertisement did
not prescribe any pass marks in the interview though for the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
written examination 40% was prescribed. Selection was,
however, made on the basis of 40% in the interview test and
those who did not secure 40% in the interview were not
selected. Challenge was made by the unsuccessful candidates
questioning their rejection by contending that in the ab-
sence of any prescription of pass marks for the interview
test, there was no justification to apply the 40% basis.
Writ Petitions were also filed when the respondents instead
of appointing people from the panel of successful candidates
went on filling up existing vacancies out of the category of
promotees. Such petitions were pending before the Calcutta,
Madras and Andhra Pradesh High Courts when the Central
Administrative Tribunals came to be set up. These were
transferred to the respective Benches of the Central Admin-
istrative Tribunals and on being clubbed were disposed of by
a common judgment dated 28th of April, 1989, by the Hydera-
bad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribu-
nal held:
"We would direct in these cases that the respondents shall
work out and estimate the vacancies available upto 20th
122
June, 1986 accurately (we have used the word ’accurately’ as
an apprehension has been expressed that direct recruits are
not getting their due since over 320 posts were filled up
between May, 1986 and December, 1988 by promotees on ad-hoc
basis or otherwise). After such estimation, the respondents
shall deduct therefrom 116 vacancies which have already been
filled and make available the remaining vacancies to the
applicants and others who took the examination on the basis
of aggregate marks, i.e. total marks obtained in the written
test and the oral interview. Such of the applicants in all
the three cases before us and heard by us at Hyderabad,
Madras and Calcutta, who come within the zone of selection
in accordance with this procedure as directed by us would be
entitled to appointment."
The writ petition is by the successful candidates whose
names appear in the panel but who have not been given ap-
pointments. They have contended that the respondents were
entitled to the issue of appointment orders to them inasmuch
as vacancies exist and there was no indication that the life
of the select list would expire either at the end of one
year or on the expiry of the further extended period of six
months and when there has been no fresh select list as yet.
The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal
referred to above has been assailed by special leave chal-
lenging the direction of the Tribunal that the fresh select
list filling up the remaining vacancies as on 20th June,
1986, should be prepared on the basis of total marks ob-
tained in the written examination and interview in disregard
of the qualifying marks for the latter. We granted special
leave and have heard the writ petition and the civil appeal
together.
As already indicated, the last list on the basis of
recruitment examination was drawn up in 1984. There have
been a good number of vacancies then existing and subse-
quently a number of them have arisen as against which only
116 appointments have been made, including 16 out of the
reserved categories. At one stage of the hearing we had
indicated to Shri Madhav Reddy, appearing for the respond-
entCorporation that the existing vacancies should be filled
up out of the panel of 1984 and in answer to this sugges-
tion, an affidavit has been filed to say that candidates
have been waiting for the holding of fresh recruitment
examination and if out of the panel of 1984 all the existing
vacancies are directed to be filled up, they would be frus-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
trated. There is force in the submission. The Tribunal in
its decision has indicated
123
that even upto 20th June, 1984, there were some vacancies
which were available to be filled up out of the panel. On
account of respondents’ inaction in holding of annual re-
cruitment examinations, vacancies have accumulated. Keeping
all these aspects in view, we direct that 50% of the vacan-
cies existing upto 31st of December, 1989, relatable to the
one-third quota should be filled up out of the panel after
giving credit to 116 appointments noticed by the Tribunal.
The remaining vacancies should be filled up by holding of a
fresh recruitment examination latest before 30th of Septem-
ber, 1990.
So far as the remaining question that was debated before
the Tribunal is concerned, we are of the view that the
scheme intended for recruitment should be on the basis of an
examination comprising of written test and interview. We
agree with the submission of Shri Madhav Reddy that inter-
view has its own place in the matter of the selection proc-
ess and the choice of the candidate. Once this is recog-
nised, it would be appropriate to require every candidate to
pass the interview test and for that purpose there should be
a basic limit provided. In the absence of any prescription
of qualifying marks for the interview test the same pre-
scription of 40% as applicable for the written examination
seems to be reasonable. That has been the view expressed by
one of us (Punchhi, J.) in a decision (Rajesh Sood & Ors. v.
Director-General, Employees State Insurance Corporation &
Anr., decided on August 7, 1985) to which our attention has
been drawn. We approve of the view. Accordingly, we modify
the direction of the Administrative Tribunal and hold that
in the oral examination the pass mark shall be 40% and 40%
pass marks shall be insisted separately for the written as
also the oral test for qualifying in th selection.
The appeal is partly allowed and both the matters are
disposed of by this common judgment. There shall be no order
as to costs.
T.N.A. Appeal allowed in part.
124