Experience marks need not be reckoned from CTI acquisition absent an express stipulation in the selection criteria.

In brief

The question

Whether respondent No. 4’s experience was improperly counted for awarding experience marks when such experience was allegedly acquired before obtaining the requisite CTI qualification.

The court held

The Court held that respondent No. 4’s experience marks were awarded in accordance with the prescribed selection criteria and that the petitioner failed to establish any illegality, arbitrariness, mala fide, or discriminatory selection process.

It also directed

The writ petition seeking quashing of respondent No. 4’s selection, preparation of a fresh selection list, and a stay of appointments was dismissed.

Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner participated in the selection process for appointment as Fitter Instructor in an Industrial Training Institute on a contractual basis and was eligible under the BCB category.

¶ 2

He challenged the selection of respondent No. 4, contending that respondent No. 4’s name was absent from the original shortlist but appeared in the revised selection list, and that the selection was the result of a “pick and choose” policy.

¶ 1–2

Under the selection criteria dated 29.07.2010, candidates could receive two marks for each completed year of industrial or teaching experience beyond the essential experience, subject to a maximum of 10 marks.

¶ 5

Accordingly, the petitioner received 6 experience marks and respondent No. 4 received 10 marks; respondent No. 4 secured 64.24 marks against the petitioner’s 63.96 marks and was selected.

¶ 3.3

02Issues

i.Whether respondent No. 4’s experience was improperly counted for awarding experience marks when such experience was allegedly acquired before obtaining the requisite CTI qualification.

¶ 2, 9–11

ii.Whether the inclusion of respondent No. 4 in the revised selection list and his consequential selection were arbitrary, discriminatory, or contrary to the prescribed selection criteria.

¶ 1–2, 10–11

iii.Whether the petitioner was entitled to quashing of respondent No. 4’s selection and preparation of a fresh selection list.

¶ 1

03Law Applied

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which judicial review is concerned with the legality, fairness, and arbitrariness of the selection process and does not permit the Court to substitute its own eligibility or assessment criteria for those prescribed by the competent employer or selection authority.

¶ 11

The Court relied on the selection criteria dated 29.07.2010, which awarded marks for “industrial/teaching experience over and above the required essential experience,” at two marks per extra year, subject to a maximum of 10 marks.

¶ 5

It also considered the applicable service rules dated 15.01.2013, prescribing NTC/NAC in the relevant trade, CITC/CTI, and five years’ practical teaching experience, including the training period, as the essential qualification for Fitter Instructor.

¶ 3.1, 6

The governing principle was that experience marks must be assessed in accordance with the prescribed criteria, and interference is unwarranted absent proof of illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides, or consideration of impermissible experience.

¶ 9–11

04Reasoning

The Court found that the selection criteria did not stipulate that experience marks could be counted only from the date of acquisition of CTI.

¶ 9

The respondents had specifically explained that respondent No. 4’s experience was counted on the basis of his ITI/CTI qualification and not on the basis of his subsequent Mechanical Engineering diploma.

¶ 7, 9

After excluding the essential five years’ experience, respondent No. 4 had 5 years, 4 months and 29 days of additional experience and was therefore correctly awarded the maximum 10 marks, whereas the petitioner had approximately 3 years and 9 months of additional experience and was correctly awarded 6 marks.

¶ 6–8

The petitioner filed no replication controverting the respondents’ explanation, and produced no material demonstrating that the experience calculation violated the criteria or involved arbitrariness, mala fides, or extraneous considerations.

¶ 10

Since respondent No. 4 also obtained higher overall marks than the petitioner, the Court held that no ground for judicial interference was established.

¶ 3.3, 11