It was submitted for & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1981 SC 1777 - F c;ited. 1.2 & Ors.

It was submitted for the petitioners that the Selection Committee did not draw the final merit list on the basis of the combined result of written examination and the D interview, and had that been done, they would have obtained the fourth or the fifth position in the final merit list as orily five candidates had qualified for the viva voce test. It was stated that according to the information supplied by the High c·ourt, one petitioner secured 142 E marks out of 250 marks in written examination and 363 marks out of 750 marks in viva voce; whereas the other secured 153.50 marks in written examination and 316 marks in viva voce test. It was contended that prescribing cut off marks for viva voce test after the process for F selection had commenced was illegal. It was, therefore, prayed that a direction be issued to amend the selection list by including the names ofthe two petitioners therein. The stand of the respondent-High Court was that the two petitioners belonged to the General category and they G could not secure the minimum marks stipulated for the viva voce test and, therefore, their names were not recommended for appointment. It was also contended for the resporidents that the Supreme Court while deciding K. Manjusree did lot notice its earlier decisions and, H • I 1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 5 S.C.R. A therefore, the decision in K. Manjusree be regarded as per incuriam or should be referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration. The question for consideration before the Court was whether introduction of the requirement of minimum 8 marks for interview/viva voce, after the entire selection process was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. Allowing the writ petitions in part, the Court C HELD: 1.1 Prescribing minimum marks for viva-voce was not permissible at all after written test was conducted. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and viva D voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva- voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned cannot either during or after the $election process add an additional requirement/ qualification that the candidate should also secure E minimum marks in the interview. [para 9] (1077-E-F] K.Manjusree vs. State of A.P & Anr. [2008] 2 SCR 1025 - relied on. Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1981 SC 1777 - F c;ited.

1.2 The decision rendered by this Court in K.Manjusree can neither be regarded as Judgment per incuriam, nor a good case is made out by the respondent fpr referring the matter to larger Bench for reconsidering G the said decision. While deciding K. Manjushree. the Court (tPticed the earlier decisions* and thereafter laid down the proposition. What is laid down in the decisions** relied upon by the respondent is that it is always open to the authority making the rules regulating thr.: selection to H • ,,.\ \ i HEMANI MALHOTRA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI 1069 prescribe the minimum marks both for written A examination and interview. The question whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview afterthe entire selection process was completed was valid or nor, which was involved in K. Manjushree, never fell for consideration of this Court in the said B decisions**. [para 10] [1077-G-H; 1078-A]