ARULAPPA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is as follows: 'For the reasons stated, in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the relating to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 3.1.1989 made B.SR.B.S.P.O. 11. R.88.81410001, quash the same and direct the second respondent select and appoint the petitioner in the post Code No.4, Financial Analyst as advertised Advertisement No.3/88 dated 18.4.1988 notified for the Scheduled Caste....... '.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as follows: THE petitioner belongs to Pallan community, which is notified as the Scheduled Caste passing the B.Com., degree in first class the petitioner completed P.G.D.M. (Post Graduate Diploma in Management) Course, which is considered to be superior to M.B.A. course second respondent caused an advertisement bearing advertisement No.3/88, 18.4.1988 in all leading newspapers. Through the said advertisement applications invited from Indian Citizens for appointment to the posts mentioned therein which includes the appointment to the post of Financial Analyst in the participating banks Canara Bank, Syndicate Bank, Vijaya Bank and Corporation Bank. THE post of Financial Analyst was categorised under post Code No.4 and the following educational qualification prescribed for the said post. M.B.A. in finance or equivalent qualification from IISC/IIM M.B.A. in finance from any recognised university. Previous experience was not considered essential. THE total number of vacancies in the post of Financial Analyst was mentioned out of which 8 posts and 4 posts were to be filled only by appointing Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe candidates respectively and the remaining 20 posts were to be filled up general. According to the procedure prescribed for selection as notified in the advertisement given in the newspapers there will be a written test of objective and descriptive type such of those candidates who rank sufficiently high in the preliminary examination will called for an interview. Final selection would be on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and in the interview and shall be strictly according to merit. THE petitioner submitted his application in the prescribed form for post of Financial Analyst and he was assigned with roll No.81410001. Along petitioner approximately 45 candidates competed for the vacancies notified for Caste candidates. THE petitioner appeared for the written examination held on THE second respondent published the roll number of the -candidates who were qualified be called for interview for the various posts. THE petitioner was also called for interview the post of Financial Analyst and he was called upon to appear for interview on 30.11.1988. Subsequently by the impugned proceedings dated 3.1.1989 made in Ref.No.P.S.R.D., S.B.O.II/R-88- 81410001, the petitioner was informed by the 2nd respondent that he come within the required ranking prescribed for the post and, therefore, he was not for the post of Financial Analyst, In the above circumstances, the petitioner has present writ petition seeking the relief referred to in the opening paragraph of this.

(3.) THE All India merit list of the successful candidates shall be drawn up or the basis of the aggregate performance of the candidates the written test and interview. THE weightage to be given for the written examination interview marks should be uniform for all groups of banks and will be as prescribed common guidelines as agreed upon by the Chairman of all Recruitment Boards." I carefully examined paragraphs 4. 4. to 4.7 of the scheme relied on by the learned for the second respondent. THE said paragraphs do not in any way advance the case 2nd respondent because they do not speak about the power of the Chairman of the respondent Board to fix the minimum cut-off mark for selecting the candidates. 6. So far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, admitted that the 2nd respondent prescribed 200 marks for the written examination and marks for viva voce THE learned counsel'for the petitioner relying on the decision Supreme Court in Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab and others, J.T. (1990)4 S.C. would contend that it would not be reasonable to have more than 15% of the total marks viva voce in the selection of candidates and as in the present case 33.33% of the marks, was reserved for viva voce the entire selection is bad and is liable to be set aside. the other hand, Mr.M.R. Naraya-naswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that if special circumstances exist it is open to the parties to prescribe highest percentage of marks exceeding 15% of the total marks for viva voce. THE counsel for the second respondent further contended that inasmuch as the petitioner raised these points in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition he is not entitled raise the contentions for the first time in the course of the arguments. 7. In Ashok Kumar Yadhav and others v. State of Haryana and others, (1985)1 (Supp.) 657, the Apex Court held that it would be prudent and safe to follow the percentage adopted by the Union Public Service Commission in case of selection to Indian Administrative Service and other allied services. THE percentage of marks allotted for the viva voce the Union Public Service Commission in the above service was 12.2% and that has found to be fair and just as directing a proper balance between examination and the voce test.