PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. IOCL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

(2.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) had issued advertisement for the post of Junior Operator Grade-I, in February, 2011, which included three vacancies in OBC category for the State of Uttar Pradesh. The advertisement mentioned the method of selection based on Written Test and Interview, meaning thereby that the merit list will be based on the combined marks of Written Test and Interview. He would state that the advertisement did not prescribe any minimum qualifying marks for Written Test and Interview separately. The petitioner, who belonged to OBC category, applied for the said post under OBC category for the State of Uttar Pradesh. He secured 98.6 marks out of total 150 marks and secured second rank in Written Test under OBC category for the State of Uttar Pradesh i.e. the second highest in the said Test after Vinod Kumar, who secured 99.45 marks. He would state, in October, 2011, IOCL issued final result of selection, whereby, it selected the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. On December 19, 2011, IOCL informed the petitioner that he was not selected since the Interview was of qualifying nature in which a candidate was to secure minimum 1.3125 out of 3.75 marks. He states that this stand of the respondent-IOCL is illegal as it could not have prescribed cut off marks in the Interview. He states, it was only with the intent to select the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that such cut off marks were prescribed for Interview. In substance, the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is the rules of the game could not have changed once the game has started. He would also state that the policy dated July 28, 2010 on which, the respondents have relied, does not have the effect of law as the same has not been approved by the competent authority. He would rely upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. V.N.Koura, learned counsel for the respondent would justify the selection. According to him, the Written Test was conducted through Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS). On 28th July, 2010, the Corporate Office of respondent no.1 in response to a proposal received from its Marketing Division formulated a policy for recruitment of a certain number of Blue Collar Workers in a phased manner from 2010/2011 to 2014/2015 on account of vacancies created by superannuation; promotion from the Staff Cadre to the Office Cadre, voluntary retirement and attrition due to deaths. Under the policy it has been decided that the weightage for the Written Test and Personal Interview shall be in the ratio of 85:15. It was also decided that the candidates will be short listed in the ratio of 1:6 after Written Test for Interview and there will be minimum qualifying standards for the Written Test and Interview. Based on the Policy decision, guidelines dated August 31, 2011 were issued. It was decided that minimum marks to be obtained by the candidate in the Interview, shall be 35% for the General/OBC Category and the Interview Committee was to allot marks out of 25. Accordingly, the candidate has to secure minimum of 1.3125 out of 3.75 marks. It is his submission that this decision was taken before the Interview could be held, on 8 th September, 2011. The petitioner could only secure 1.125 in the Interview which was less than 1.3125, whereas the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had secured 1.65 and 3 marks in the Interview, their cumulative marks in the Written Test and Interview were added and as they were at Merit Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, they were appointed. Mr. Koura states that there cannot be any malice in the conduct of the recruitment process as the Written Test was conducted by an outside agency and the Interview Committee was not privy to the marks obtained by the candidates in the Written Examination. In this regard, he states that the Interviews of the candidates including the petitioner were held on September 8, 2011, whereas the marks of the Written Examination were sent by the IBPS only on September 21, 2011, hence, he states, the apprehension of the petitioner, that the cut off marks in Interview were so awarded to benefit the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, is untenable. He also states, in the selection process held in the year 2012, the marks for the interview were reduced to 30% for General and OBC candidates and at 25% marks for SC/ST candidates because large number of candidates had failed to qualify in the interview. In the year 2011 Recruitment, 277 candidates out of 797 interviewed, did not qualify for the interview which means that about 35% of the candidates interviewed did not qualify for the interview. It is his endeavour to state that same process and procedure as was adopted in 2011, was adopted in 2012 recruitment. He would rely upon the judgment in case Mahinder Kumar and Others Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 11 SCC 87, in support of his contention.