Bachelor of Law

This tag is associated with 1 post

Service matter = whether fixation of benchmark would amount to change in the criteria of selection in the midstream when there was no such stipulation in that regard in the advertisement.- whether there was any change in the mode of selection after the process of selection had started. – Rule 8 is a step in the preparation of a list of eligible candidates with minimum qualifications who may be considered for appointment. The list is prepared in order of merit. The one higher in rank is deemed to be more meritorious than the one who is lower in rank. It could never be said that one who tops the list is equal in merit to the one who is at the bottom of the list. Except that they are all mentioned in one list, each one of them stands on a separate level of competence as compared with another. That is why Rule 10(ii), Part C speaks of “selection for appointment”. Even as there is no constraint on the State Government in respect of the number of appointment to be made, there is no constraint on the State Government in respect of the number of appointments to be made, there is no constraint on the Government fixing a higher score of marks for the purpose of selection. In a case where appointments are made by selection from a number of eligible candidates it is open to the Government with a view to maintain high-standards of competence to fix a score which is much higher than the one required for mere eligibility.” “In the case at hand, as we perceive, the intention of the Commission was to get more meritorious candidates. There has been no change of norm or procedure. No mandate was fixed that a candidate should secure minimum marks in the interview. Obtaining of 65% marks was thought as a guidelines for selecting the candidate from the OBC category. The objective is to have the best hands in the field of law. According to us, fixation of such marks is legitimate and gives a demarcating choice to the employer. It has to be borne in mind that the requirement of the job in a Competition Commission demands a well structured selection process. Such a selection would advance the cause of efficiency. Thus scrutinized, we do not perceive any error in the fixation of marks at 65% by the Commission which has been uniformly applied. The said action of the Commission cannot be treated to be illegal, irrational or illegitimate.” It is stated at the cost of repetition that there is no change in the criteria of selection which remained of 80 marks for written test and 20 marks for interview without any subsequent introduction of minimum cut off marks in the interview. It is the short listing which is done by fixing the benchmark, to recruit best candidates on rational and reasonable basis. That is clearly permissible under the law.(M.P.Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar & Anr. (1994) 6 SCC 293). – 18. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be to dismiss the appeals as bereft of any merit. No costs.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40656 [REPORTABLE] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6799/2013 (arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 34427/2011) Yogesh Yadav …..Appellant Versus Union of India & Ors. ….Respondents WITH C.A.No.6800/2013 (@ SLP(civil) Nos.6988/2012 C.A.No.6801/2013 (@ SLP(civil) Nos.9556/2012   J U D G M E N T A.K.SIKRI,J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Counsel … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,297 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com