TABIRAM MIRANG Vs. A P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Michi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pertin, learned counsel for the respondents as well as the learned Govt. Advocate.

(2.) On 5th of March, 2001, the Department of Education, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh sent a requisition to the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Itanagar for short 'Commission' to send a panel of selected candidates for recruitment of lecturers against the vacancies described in the appendix to the letters. Pursuant to that, Commission issued an advertisement and the petitioners alongwith the others participated in the selection process. Vide Annexure-E, dated 24th of July 2001, Commission recommended the names of four candidates against the subjects mentioned therein. The name of the petitioners did not appear in the said selection.

(3.) The first submission of the petitioners is that the Commission was required to conduct a selection process and forward the names of all the qualified candidates to the Government and it was for the Govt. to make appointments from the panel of selected candidates. It is stated that the Commission cannot sit over the matter of selection by recommending one name only and the names of all selected/qualified candidates should have been recommended or referred to the Govt. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ms. Nilima Sungla -Vs- the State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 169. On perusal of the above decision, it is seen that the matter related to appointment of Subordinate Judges under the relevant rules, relating to appointment of Subordinate Judges in Haryana. The Apex Court directed that the Public Service Commission must communicate the names of all the candidates, who are obtaining 55% or above marks and cannot withhold some names on the ground that the limited vacancies are available. The above decision was given on the basis of the provision of Rules 8 & 10 of the relevant State rules, which provided that in order to qualify, the candidates must secure aggregate of 55% marks in the written as well as viva voce test. The recruitment rules of the appointment of teachers under the UGC Scheme under the State of Arunachal Pradesh does not provide for such cut off or qualification mark. Hence, the ratio of law laid down in Ms. Nilima Sungla (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, submits that as per the requisition received from the State Govt. and as per the relevant rules, the Commission conducted the competitive examination to select the most suitable candidate for appointment to the post of Lecturer. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. -Vs- Rafiquddin, 1987 (Supp.) SCC 401. The Apex Court observed as follows : "The Division Bench of the High Court observed that the commission had no authority to fix any minimum marks for the viva voce test and even if it had such a power it could not prescribe the minimum marks without giving notice to the candidates. The Bench further observed that if the Commission had given notice to the candidates may before the steps for holding the competitive examination were taken the candidates may or may not have appeared at the examination. In our opinion the High Court committed a serious error in applying the principles of natural justice to a competitive examination. There is a basic difference between an examination held by a college or university or examining body to award degree to candidates appearing at the examination and a competitive examination. The examining body or the authority prescribed minimum pass marks. If a person obtains the minimum marks as prescribed by the authority he is declared successful and placed in the respective grade according to the number of marks obtained by him. In such a case it would be obligatory on the examining authority to prescribe marks for passing the examination as well as for securing different grades well in advance. A competitive examination on the other hand is of different character. The purpose and object of the competitive examination is to select most suitable candidates for appointment to public services. A person may obtain sufficiently high marks and yet he may not be selected on account of the limited number of posts and availability of persons of higher quality. Having regard to the nature and characteristics of a competitive examination it is not possible nor necessary to give notice to the candidates about the minimum marks which the Commission may determine for purposes of eliminating the unsuitable candidates. The rule of natural justice does not apply to a competitive examination.