Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

664
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
Misc. Petition No.2094 of 1984
D.D. 15.3.1985
Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice G.L.Oza &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.M.Lal
Dashrath Singh & Ors. ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of M.P. & Anr. ... Respondents
Recruitment:
Whether the Commission can prescribe additional criteria for selection apart from the criteria
prescribed under the Recruitment Rules and whether the Commission can change additional criteria at
a later stage of the selection? - No
Recruitment Notification dated 30.10.1982 was issued for recruitment to the post of Assistant
Engineer in Irrigation Department under Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Engineering Services (Gazetted
Recruitment) Rules, 1968 – Method of direct recruitment by selection is provided in Rule 12 as per
which the selection is to be made by the Commission after interviewing them – The Commission
prescribed written examination in the notification and it was also stated on the basis of the marks
obtained in the interview selection would be made – Petitioners were candidates and qualified in the
written test appeared for interview but the petitioners were not selected – The petitioners alleged that
the criterion for selection was challenged after conducting the interview in as much as prescribed
minimum marks in each paper and as a result of this the candidates who had obtained higher total
marks were screened out as they had obtained less than minimum marks in one of the papers and the
candidates who had secured less marks were included in the select list – High Court in view of Rule 12
which prescribes only interview held that written test can be held only for finding out eligible candidates
for interview and consequently, selection should be made on the basis of the marks obtained in the
interview and quashed the select list with a direction to the Commission to prepare select list of
candidates in the order of merit on the basis of marks obtained by them at the interview in accordance
with Rule 12.
Held:
Madhya Pradesh PSC
It is apparent that as Rule 12 did not provide for any written examination, the question of adding of
marks in the written examination and also laying of criteria of obtaining minimum marks in each paper
in the written examination is without authority. It is also clear that as Rule 12 did not prescribe any
criterion of obtaining minimum marks at the interview, that criterion also could not be justified within
the language of Rule 12.
Cases referred:
AIR 1981 SC 1977 – Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan
AIR 1984 SC 541 - P.K.Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India
AIR 1984 SC 873 – Javid Rasool Bhat v. State of Jammu & Kashmir