Selection Based Solely on Interview Does Not Violate Law Where No Written Test Is Prescribed

The petitioner applied for the post of Legal Manager (E5 Grade) under the OBC category following an advertisement by the respondent (Coal India Ltd.) which stipulated selection via interview.

Out of nine total posts, two were reserved for OBC candidates. While six General and one SC candidate were appointed, no OBC candidate was selected.

The respondent’s Selection Committee had adopted a methodology allocating 10 marks for qualification, 20 for experience, and 70 for the interview.

The petitioner secured 18/70 in the interview, totaling 40 marks, which fell below the 55-mark cut-off set for the OBC category.

The petitioner challenged the high weightage of interview marks and the lack of recorded reasons for non-selection.

1. Whether the Selection Committee’s decision to allocate 70% weightage to the interview stage is arbitrary or illegal.

2. Whether the respondent was legally obligated to record specific reasons for not recommending the petitioner for appointment.

3. Whether the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has territorial jurisdiction given that the selection process occurred in Kolkata.

when selection is based solely on an interview (without a written test), the allocation of marks under different heads is within the Selection Committee's discretion.

National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman: established that administrative selection committees are not required to record reasons for non-selection unless mandated by statute.

Yogesh Yadav v. Union of India: permits the fixing of benchmarks or "short-listing" criteria higher than minimum eligibility to maintain standards.

The Court observed that since the advertisement explicitly stated the selection would be done through an interview only, the high weightage (70 marks) was justified as the interview was the primary evaluative tool.

The Court distinguished the petitioner’s citations (Ashok Kumar Yadav and Rajib Ranjan Kumar) because those cases involved a combination of written tests and interviews, whereas here, no written test was conducted.

Regarding the lack of reasons, the Court held that the function of the Selection Committee is purely administrative, not judicial; thus, in the absence of specific rules, there is no legal obligation to record reasons for the relative assessment of candidates.

The Court noted the petitioner participated in the process knowing the criteria and failed to meet the objective cut-off (55 marks) previously determined by the committee on the day of the interview.

The Selection Committee's methodology for awarding marks and fixing benchmarks is not subject to judicial interference. Consequently, as the petitioner failed to secure the requisite cut-off marks, he was not entitled to any relief.

The Writ Petition was dismissed.