Kamalakannan v. NONE

The Director General of Police/The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,Anna Salai, Chennai-2.... 2nd Respondent in W.A.194/08, 195/08, 196/08,197/08, 198/08, 199/08, 317/08,318/08, 1598/07, 1599/07,1600/07, 1601/07, 1602/07,1607/07, 1608/07, 1609/07,1610/07, and Ist respondent inW.P.1563/07, 1583/07, 1584/07The Director General of Police,Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,Mylapore, Chennai-600 004... 3rd Respondent in W.A.No.194 of 2008, 195/08, 196/08, 197/08,199/08, 317/08, 318/08, 1598/07,1599/07, 1600/07, 1601/07,1602/07, 1607/07, 1608/07,1609/07, 1610/07 and 2ndRespondent in 1563/07, 1583/07,1584/07 and Ist respondent inW.A.198/08The Secretary to GovernmentHome (Police II) DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai-9... ISt Respondent in W.A.317/08P. RajendranVibhakarsharmasuklaLakshmi Prasad... Respondents 3 to 6 in W.A.1563/07, 1584/07Appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against theorder of the Honourable Mr. Justice K. Venkataraman dated20.11.2007 and made in the exercise of the Special OriginalJurisdiction of the High Court in Writ Petition Nos.31225/07,32119/07, 26637/07, 33198/07, 28707/07, 23692/07, 26048/07,30189/07, 26185/07, 26188/07, 28710/07, 29115/07, 33376/07,26184/07, 33197/07, 32225/07, 28975/07, 30358/07 and 32173/07 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the order of the Honourable Mr.Justice K.Chandru inWP.No.35682/2007 dated 26.11.2007 respectively presented to thisCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue aWrit of (1) Declaration (a) declaring that the provisional selectlist published by the second Respondent on 17.07.2007 frrecruitment of Sub-Inspector of Police, (Men - Open Market Quota)2006 is null and void and further direct the respondents to selectand appoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police under 80%Open Market candidate Quota and grant - all consequential benefits(WP.No.31225/07 and 32225/07) (b) declaring that the provisional list published by thesecond respondent on 17.07.2007 for recruitment of Sub-Inspector ofPolice for the year 2006 is null and void and further direct therespondents to select and appoint the petitioner to the post ofSub-Inspector of Police under 20% Quota for Departmental candidates(WP.32119/07) and grant all consequential benefits. (c) declaringthat the provisional select list published by the 2nd respondent on17.07.2007 for recruitment of Sub-Inspector of Police (Men -Department Quota) 2006 is null and void and direct the respondentto select and appoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Policeunder 20% department candidates Quota and grant all consequentialbenefits (WP.No.26637/0733198/07, 26185/07, 26188/07,28710/07, 33376/07, 26184/07, 33197/07.(d) declaring that the publication published on 09.04.2007 forrecruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for the year2006 is null and void and further direct the respondents to publishthe results in respect of the 10% wards quota and consider theclaim of the candidates respectively (WP.23692/07)(e) declaring that the provisional select list published by the 2ndrespondent on 17.07.2007 for recruitment of Sub-Inspector of Police(men and Women) 2006 is null and void and further direct therespondent to select and appoint the petitioner as the Sub-Inspector of Police under 10% wards Quota and grant allconsequential benefits (WP.26048/07)(e) declaring that the provisional select list published bythe second respondent for recruitment of Sub-Inspector of Police(Men - Direct Quota) 2006 is null and void and consequently directthe respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as SubInspector of Police under direct Quato (WP.30189/07)f) declaring that the provisional select list published by the 2ndrespondent on 17.7.2007 for recruitment of Sub Inspector of Police(men) 2006 is null and void and further direct the respondents toselect and appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10% wards quota candidates and grant all consequential benefits (WP29115/07, 35682/07)g) To declare the petitioners non selection (register No.1000030)for the recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (men andwomen) for the year 2006 as issued in the selection list and hisnon deputation for the medical examination and further process ofselection as illegal, null and void and to consequently issuedirections to the respondents to depute the petitioner to medicalexamination and police verification and if found fit to select himfor appointment as Sub Inspector of Police (men) for the year 2006and appoint him as such with retrospective effect from the date ofappointment of his immediate Junior with all consequential serviceand monetary benefits (WP.28975/07, 32173/07)II certiorarified mandamus (a) Calling for the records of the 2ndrespondent in connection with the impugned orders passed by him inC.No.D1/2906/2007 dt 14.8.2007 and quash the same and direct therespondents to call the petitioner for the vive voce examinationand appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police based on theselection conducted for the year 2006 (WP.28707/07) (b) calling for the records relating to the entire selectionprocess for recruitment of Sub Inspectors of Police Men and Women2006, quash the non selection of the Petitioner under the 10%allotted as Wards Quota and the consequential order inRc.No.D1/2658/2007 dt 28.8.2007, and issue consequential directionsto the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner(Register No.1001862) under the quota 10% reserved of police (men)for the year 2006. (W.P.30358/07)Order: These Writ Appeals coming on for orders as to admissionon this day upon perusing the grounds of Appeals the order of theHon'ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataraman, dated 20.11.2007 and made inthe exercise of the special Original Jurisdiction of the High Courtin W.P.Nos.31225, 32119, 26637, 33198, 28707, 23692, 26048, 30189,26185, 26188, 28710, 29115, 33376, 26184, 33197, 32225, 28975 and30358/07 and the order of Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru dated26.11.2007 in W.P.No.35682/07 and upon hearing the arguments ofMr.K. Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.Muthappan in W.A.Nos.194to 199/08, 1598 to 1602/07, 1607 to 1610/07 and of Mr.K. Selvaraj,Advocate for the Appellant in W.A.317 and 318/08 and of Mr.M. Ravi,Advocate for the Appellant in W.A.1563, 1583 and 1584/07 and ofMr.D. Sreenivasan, Additional Government Pleader on behalf of theState the Court made the following order:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Common JudgmentS.J.Mukhopadhaya,JThe Writ Appeals relate to the appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The appellants/Writ Petitioners applied forappointment to the said post, pursuant to the Notification inquestion, but having not been recommended for appointment, theypreferred these Writ Appeals, either challenging the totalselection or praying for their appointment or for similar otherreliefs. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the learned singleJudge in W.P.Nos.14482 of 2007 etc. batch cases, by the impugnedcommon order dated 20.11.2007, giving rise to the present WritAppeals filed by the appellants/Writ Petitioners. In the aforesaidbackground, the Writ Appeals were heard together and disposed of bythis common judgment.2. As the learned Senior Counsel/counsel appearing for theappellants limited their arguments with regard to the directinterview (viva-voce test) and marks allotted towards specialcertificates/sports/games, it is not necessary to discuss all theother submissions as were raised before the Writ Court and forthat, we are referring only the following relevant facts for properadjudication of the Writ Appeals:(i) Pursuant to Notification in Na.Ka.A1.No.2626/2006, callingfor applications for appointment of male/female Sub-Inspectors ofPolice (for shot, S.I. of Police) in the Tamil Nadu Police Service,the appellants/Writ Petitioners applied along with others. In theadvertisement/prospectus, the respondents prescribed the procedurefor selection, which consisted of the following stages:(i) Certificate(s) verification;(ii) Physical measurement test;(iii) Endurance test;(iv) Physical efficient test;(v) Written test;(vi) Direct interview (Viva-voce test) and(vii) Medical test (for selected candidates).The candidates were informed through the advertisement/prospectusthe marks allotted for different tests, as shown hereunder: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Name of the test Marks(i) Physical efficiency test15(ii) Written test (GeneralKnowledge) in the specified manner(Tamil/English)45(iii) Written Test / PsychologyTest (Tamil /English)25(iv) Direct interview (viva-voce)10(v) Other certificates(NCC/NSS &Sports)5Total100The selection was conducted through the Tamil Nadu UniformedServices Recruitment Board (for short, 'Recruitment Board') forfilling up of 682 vacancies of S.I. of Police by directrecruitment. (ii) An Officer in the rank of Deputy Inspector General ofPolice was designated as Sub-Committee Chairman with one member inthe rank of Superintendent of Police/DC and two other members inthe rank of Additional Superintendent of Police/ADC and DeputySuperintendent of Police/AC, were entrusted to supervise the entireprocess of selection. One super-check officer in the rank ofInspector General of Police was also nominated with instructions tomake surprise check of the measurement of height, chest and alsothe other tests for effective recruitment process.(iii) In the said Notification, it was also informed that onlythe selected candidates will be informed of their selection and noindividual intimation will be sent to those who were not selected.(iv) The recruitment process was conducted in a phased mannerbetween 30.3.2007 and 11.4.2007 in several batches, giving adequateand sufficient timing to the candidates to complete the tests. Thecandidates who had qualified in the certificate verification test,physical measurement test, endurance test and physical efficiencytest, were called for the written test on 20.5.2007. The personswho had qualified themselves in the written test, were called forthe direct interview/viva-voce test. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) The select lists were published in the Internet and apress-note to that effect was also issued. The candidates who askedfor details of marks scored by them, were also provided withinformation. Apart from the panel, a waiting list was also drawn upto accommodate candidates in case any candidate failed in themedical examination or the police verification or declining theoffer of appointment.3. Though it was a direct recruitment, apart from reservationson the basis of caste, 20% of the posts was reserved for directrecruitment from amongst the departmental candidates (PoliceDepartment), who were already working in the lower posts. For thewards of the employees of the Police Department, out of the rest80%, 10% of the posts was provided. In included only those who aredependent on the employees, such as dependent son, daughter etc. 4. Before this Court in the Writ Appeals, the majority of theappellants/Writ Petitioners are departmental candidates who appliedagainst 20% quota; there are one or other appellant who claimedappointment as "wards" and there is also one or other appellant whoclaimed appointment on direct recruitment as outsiders. 5. From the impugned common order passed by the learned singleJudge in W.P.Nos.14482 of 2007, etc. batch cases, dated 20.11.2007,it would be evident that the appellants/Writ Petitions challengedthe selection on the ground that the written examination was notconducted properly or the quota of each category was not followedor proper marking for certificate including sports, has not beenmade, which were classified by the learned single Judge, asfollows:"(a) The Written examination was notconducted properly and sought for cancellationof the written examination and conduct freshexamination;(b) 20% Departmental candidatequota was not published and selections have notbeen made for full 20% departmental candidatequota;(c) 10% earmarked for the wards of thepolice personnel was not published separatelyand that 10% reserved for dependents categoryhas not been filled up.(d) S.C. & S.T. quota has not been filledup as per the advertisement made. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (e) Absolutely, there is no transparencyin the selection.(f) Marks have not been awarded for thesports certificates.(g) In the viva-voce, though answeredwell, they have been given less marks." 6. As stated above, however, before this Court in the WritAppeals, the learned Senior Counsel/counsel appearing for theappellants confined their argument in regard to direct interview(viva-voce test) and the marks granted for certificates/sports(NSS, NCC, sports, games, etc.) and made the following submissions:(i) There was no transparency for giving marks towards thedirect interview (viva-voce test). Though most of the appellantsobtained better marks in the physical efficiency test and writtentest and fairly did well in the viva-voce test also by giving replyto almost all the questions, but, with a view to exclude them, theyhave been provided with lower marks in the viva-voce test and thosewho obtained lower marks than the appellants in the written testand the physical efficiency test, have been selected and appointedby providing them with higher marks in the viva-voce test.Insupport of their stand, the learned Senior Counsel/counselappearing for the appellants relied on the data to show that somepersons have been provided with higher marks in the viva-voce test,with a view to select them, though they have obtained lower marksthan the appellants in the written test and physical efficiencytest.(ii) In the advertisement/prospectus, it was only shown that'5' marks will be provided for certificates such as NSS, NCC andsports. Though most of the appellants have produced NSS, NCC and/orsports certificates, but with a view to eliminate them, no markshave been given to them towards the "certificates".The so-called marks as allotted towards differentcertificates, as highlighted by the respondents before the learnedsingle Judge, were "after-thought", as no such decision was takenby the State Government or the competent authority to provide suchmarks for different certificates. It was submitted that theSelection Board/Committee had no jurisdiction to specify separatemarks for "certificates" (NSS, NCC or sports), when once the marksallotted for such "Certificates" is specified in theadvertisement/prospectus itself. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ According to the learned Senior Counsel/counsel appearing forthe appellants, even as per the special marks allotted fordifferent "certificates", as stated by the respondents, many of theappellants were entitled for more marks, but they have not beengiven such marks for different "certificates".7. In support of their stand that the appellants should havebeen provided with more marks for different subjects, certain factshave been highlighted in respect of each appellants, which we willtake up and discuss at the appropriate stage in this judgment.Learned counsel for the appellants also relied on certaindecisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, particularly, AIR1983 SC 580 (Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh vs. SanjayGulati), 2001 (2) SCC 451 (W.B. State Electricity Board vs. PatelEngineering Co.), 2001 (6) SCC 46 (Rajsekhar Gogoi vs. State ofAssam), 2005 Writ L.R. 697 (Madras High Court) (Dr.M.AshiqNihmathullah vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu) and others, 2006Writ L.R. 574 (Madras High Court) (Dr.M.Vennila vs. Tamil NaduPublic Service Commission) and 2006 Writ L.R. 964 (Madras HighCourt) (Dr.A.Rajapandian vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others). Outof these cases, the decision reported in AIR 1983 SC 580 (citedsupra) relates to spot admissions made on extraneousconsiderations and in violation of rules. The said case was basedon particular facts and cannot be applied in the present case, inthe absence of any evidence to show that one or other appellant wasexcluded to accommodate one or other individual.The rest of the two decisions of the Supreme Court, viz., 2001(2) SCC 451 (cited supra) and 2001 (6) SCC 46 (cited supra) are notat all applicable, as they relate to awarding of tenders and AssamExcise Rules. Similarly, we are not deliberating on the other cases, as theyare based on particular facts and not relevant to the questionraised in these appeals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State, whilereiterating that the selection was done in accordance with theprocedures prescribed under the relevant Rules andadvertisement/prospectus, submitted that there was no illegalitycommitted in the matter of selection of S.I. of Police. Hehighlighted the manner in which the selection was made and markswere allotted under different heads, including the marks obtainedby the appellants. According to the learned counsel appearing forthe respondent-State, the appellants having got lower marks thanthe cut-off marks i.e. the last obtained by the person recommendedand appointed in the particular category and as they have not comewithin the 'zone of appointment' against the existing vacancies,have not been recommended for appointment. With regard to theindividual candidates, learned counsel appearing for therespondents-State highlighted their marks vis-a-vis the cut-offmarks upto which the names were recommended against each category,and it was submitted that those who claim appointment against oneor other quota, their cases were so considered.9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the partiesand noticed the rival contentions, as also the impugned commonorder and the judgments referred by the learned singleJudge/counsel for the parties. We have also noticed the otherrecords including the marks obtained by one or other appellants andcertain original records as was produced by the learned counsel forthe respondents-State before this Court.10. The respondents along with their common counter affidavitdated 28.2.2008, filed in the Writ Appeals, produced a chart,signed by the Director General of Police/Chairman of the Tamil NaduUniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai-2, showing thedetails of marks obtained by one or other applicants, the cut-offmarks of that particular quota/community and the final remarksagainst their individual names showing the reasons for not takingthem in the service. Learned Senior Counsel/counsel for theappellants have not disputed the marks as was shown in the saidchart including the cut-off marks shown for one or othercommunity/category. For proper appreciation of the individualcases, we are extracting the said chart hereunder: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.A. InCodeName of the MARK DETAILSTotalCommunityW.Q.No.W.P. No.No.ApplicantPETWTV.V.Marks(80% or 20%)Cut OffRESULT15%70%10%5%Cut Off MarksMarks1234567891011121W.A.194/08in W.P.31225/07010029212572071SC-80%-72-Not secured cut off mark2W.A.1610/07in W.P.32225/07010222615551071MBC-80%-73-Not secured cut off mark3W.A.1598/07in W.P.26185/07020080412553070BC-20%-72-Not secured cut off mark4W.A.198/08Not qualified for V.V.in W.P.28707/0701009221546--61SC-80%- -Cut off mark for VV – 665W.A.195/08in W.P.32119/07010462712526070BC-20%-72-Not secured cut off mark6W.A.1584/07in W.P.32173/07100008415541070MBC-80%-73-Not secured cut off mark7W.A.1583/07Not qualified for V.V.in W.P.30358/0710018621246--58BC- - PW-59Cut off mark for VV – 598W.A.1069/07in W.P.35682/0706009449532064MBC- - PW-68Not secured cut off mark9W.A.106/08in W.P.25563/07010557412545071BC-20%-72-Not secured cut off mark10W.A.1563/07in W.P.28975/07100003015451061BC- - PW-67Not secured cut off mark11W.A.1600/07in W.P.28710/07070088212561069BC-20%-72-Not secured cut off mark12W.A.197/08in W.P.33198/07010547412491163SC-20%-67-Not secured cut off mark13W.A.1608/07in W.P.33197/07010534315491065SC-20%-67-Not secured cut off mark14W.A.1601/07in W.P.29115/07010007215511067MBC- - PW-68Not secured cut off mark15W.A.1599/07in W.P.26188/07260111315543072MBC-20%-73-Not secured cut off mark16W.A.1607/07in W.P.26184/07 020089315503058BC-20%-72-Not secured cut off mark17W.A.199/08Not qualified for V.V.in W.P.23692/073000305941--51BC-80%--Cut off mark for VV – 6718WASR.5358/08in W.P.34267/07010505512553070BC-20%-72-Not secured cut off mark19W.A.196/08in W.P.26637/07010581612543170MBC-20%-73-Not secured cut off mark20W.A.1602/07in W.P.33376/0701049776606072MBC-20%-73-Not secured cut off mark21WASR.5354/08in W.P.34264/0701050579563068BC-20%-72-Not secured cut off markSl.Spl. Mks.Arulmanimaran.MBalakumaran.CChandrasekaran A.G.Deenadayalan. R.Kamalakannan. E.Kamalakannan. V.Kuppuraj. J.Mohanraj. S.Packiaraja. M.Paraniramalingam. S.Ponnusamy. R.Prabhu. M.Prabudoss. V.Ramnath. C.Rathinakumar. S.Saravanan. C.P.Sudhan. P.Sundaramoorthy. C.K.Sundararajan. R.Thiruvenkadam. S.Viji. A. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. Learned Senior Counsel/counsel appearing for theappellants, while making general submission regarding the marksallotted towards direct interview (viva-voce test), as mentioned inthe earlier paragraphs of this judgment, highlighted thecertificates of individual appellants to suggest that they have notbeen provided with marks towards such certificates, which they wereentitled to. The following submissions were made with regard tosome of the appellants:"W.A.No.1598 of 2007 (A.G.Chandrasekaran):The appellant has not been awarded specialmarks for NSS certificate produced by him. Theappellant has attended 240 hours of service inthe various NSS projects/camps in the schoollevel. The appellant should have been awarded 2marks. In the previous selection for SubInspector of Police for 120 hours of NSSactivities, one mark has been awarded and hencethe appellant is eligible for 2 marks. Thecertificate was produced at the time of vivavoce. But no marks have been awarded.W.A.No.1599 of 2007 (S.Rathina Kumar)The appellant has not been awarded specialmarks for NSS (school and college), NCC(school) and sports/games. The appellant is amember of NSS during school & college. Duringschool, he has participated 240 hours in theprogramme for which he should have been awarded1 marks for NSS. He is also a member of NSS inthe college and attended the special campprogramme for which also he should have beenawarded 0.5 mark. The appellant is a NCC cadetand obtained "A" Certificate for whichnecessary mark should have been awarded. As perthe procedure followed for awarding marks, the"C" certificate in the college is alone awardedwith marks which is illegal and incorrect. Whenthere is no specific instructions regarding theparticipation in the school and college level,the appellant cannot be denied marks for theservices rendered in NSS and for also obtaining"A" Certificate. The appellant is entitled toget 0.5 mark.The appellant has also participated in theIntramural tournaments and sports representingthe college during college days and obtainedmerit certificate. The appellant has obtainedcertificate of merit for chess tournament. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellant has also participated in varioussports activities during school days andobtained merit certificate. The appellant hasalso obtained merit certificate in the StatePolice Duty Meet for the year 2004-05 in theState Aquatics which is one of the approvedgames and sports. The appellant is a Stateplayer representing the state in the Aquaticsfor which he should have been awarded minimum 1mark. The appellant has also represented AllIndia Police Aquatic & Cross CountryChampionship of 53rd All India Police Games heldin Delhi during 2004 for which the appellant iseligible for 1 mark, according to the procedurefollowed in awarding special marks.W.A.No.1600 of 2007 (R.Ponnuswamy):The appellant has not been awarded specialmarks for NCC, NSS and sports/games. Theappellant has obtained "A" certificate with "B"grading in the NCC while studying in theschool. The appellant has also participated inthe NCC camp during school days. The appellantis a member of a NSS scheme while studying inthe college and attended 240 hours for whichalso certificates have been issued. Thecertificate was produced at the time of vivavoce. But no marks have been awarded. Theappellant is entitled to get 0.5 mark for NCCand 1 mark for NSS programme. But no marks havebeen awarded for NSS, NCC.The appellant has obtained certificate ofmerit from the Cheyyar Athletic Sports Club.The Directorate of Sports and Youth Serviceshas also issued certificate of merit for theappellant in the block level competition in thevolley ball game. The appellant has representedthe University of Madras in the Handball teamin the year 1993-94. The appellant hasrepresented the Tamil Nadu State in India inthe national level competition in the game ofhandball in the year 1998 for which he has beengranted Form 2 Certificate. The appellant hasrepresented Hand Ball Federation of India inthe South Zone Hand Ball Championship in theyear 1998. The appellant is eligible for 2marks for Form 2 Certificate issued by theTamil Nadu Hand Ball Association. More over forrepresenting the University and the State the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellant is eligible for 1.5 marks as per theprocedure followed in awarding special marks.W.A.No.1601 of 2007 (C.Ramnath):The appellant has not been awarded specialmarks for NSS, NCC and sports/games. Theappellant as a football player has participatedin the inter college football tournament 2004-05 representing his college and alsorepresented the University of Madras in theUniversity of Madras "B" Zone Tournament heldduring the year 2005-06 for which he has beenawarded Certificate of Merit by the Chairman ofthe Tournaments and Sports Committee forUniversity of Madras. The certificate wasproduced at the time of viva voce. But no markshave been awarded. The certificate is enclosedin the type set of the writ petition page 1 &2. As per the procedure followed in awardingspecial marks for sports and games, theappellant is eligible for 1 mark. If theappellant is able to secure 1 mark, then hesecures the cut off mark for selection. Theappellant has not been awarded 1 mark whichshows that there is total arbitrariness inawarding marks not only for extra curricularactivities but also the viva voce.W.A.No.1607 of 2007 (C.P.Saravanan):The appellant has not been awarded specialmarks for NSS and sports/games. The appellantis a member of scout and a member of NSS duringschool & college. The appellant is a sportsmanrepresented the school as well as the collegeand he is a champion. The appellant hasrepresented the University of Madras in ballbadminton during the 1995-96. The appellant hasalso represented Tiruvellore District for BallBadminton during 1994-95. The appellant hasalso obtained merit certificate in the StatePolice Duty Meet for the year 2004-05. Theappellant is a State player representing thestate in the Ball badminton.W.A.No.1608 of 2007 (V.Prabhu Dass):The appellant has answered all the 12questions put to him in the interview. Theinterview board has awarded him one markwhereas he is entitled to minimum 3 marks for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mere appearance in the viva voce examination.The candidates who have not answered well inthe interview have been awarded more marks andthey have been selected. Moreover, thecandidates who have secured less marks in thephysical efficiency test and written test havebeen awarded 6 to 7 marks in the interview andthey have been selected. There is notransparency in the process of selection."W.A.No.1610 of 2007 (Balakumaran):The appellant has not been awarded anyspecial marks. The appellant has participatedin the divisional level games while studying inthe school and has obtained merit certificate.The appellant is entitled to minimum 1 mark asper the special procedure. The appellant is ainservice candidate who has undergone commandocourse as a policeman and is graded "D". Itshows that the appellant has got an outstandingcareer as a policeman. It is submitted thatwhen a recruitment is made from among thepoliceman mark should be awarded for theoutstanding performance as a policeman whileserving in the department. The specialprocedure for awarding special marks does notspeak about the merit performance of apoliceman who is already serving in thedepartment. The merit services in thedepartment should be suitably rewarded bygranting him special marks for the extracurricular activities (commando course trainingand stenographer's guild certificate). Had theappellant been awarded minimum of 2 marks forthe extra curricular activities, he would havereached the cut off mark. The appellant has answered all the 10questions put to him in the interview. Theinterview board has awarded him one markwhereas he is entitled to minimum 3 marks formere appearance in the viva voce examination.The candidates who have not answered well inthe interview have been awarded more marks andthey have been selected. Moreover, thecandidates who have secured less marks in thephysical efficiency test and written test havebeen awarded 6 to 7 marks in the interview andthey have been selected. There is no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transparency in the process of selection."W.A.No.194 of 2008 (Arul Manimaran):The appellant has not been awarded anyspecial marks. The appellant is a member of NSSin the college and has secured participationcertificate. The petitioner has attended campsin NSS and has participated in the communityservice and social awareness programme forwhich he is entitled to 2 marks for the extracurricular activities as per the specialprocedure for special marks. But no marks havebeen awarded to him and the certificateproduced by him was ignored. Had he beenawarded minimum 2 marks for extra curricularactivities, he would have reached the cut offmark.The appellant has answered all the 13questions put to him in the interview. Theinterview board has awarded him one markwhereas he is entitled to minimum 3 marks formere appearance in the viva voce examination.The candidates who have not answered well inthe interview have been awarded more marks andthey have been selected. Moreover, thecandidates who have secured less marks in thephysical efficiency test and written test havebeen awarded 6 to 7 marks in the interview andthey have been selected. There is notransparency in the process of selection.W.A.No.195 of 2008 (Kamalakannan):The appellant has not been awarded anyspecial marks. The appellant is a body buildingchampion participated in the variouschampionship programmes for the last severalyears and has secured 1st rank. He hasparticipated in the district level, statelevel, city level and has been awardedmeritorious certificate. He should have beenawarded all the 5 marks meant for extracurricular activities. The appellant hasparticipated in the 12th All India CoastalWeight Lifting Competition, 1996. Thedepartment ought to have encouraged a inservicecandidate who has got an outstandingperformance as a gymnastics which is one of theapproved games and sports. But he has not beenawarded due marks. Had he been awarded minimum https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 marks for extra curricular activities, hewould have reached the cut off mark.The appellant has answered all the 6questions put to him in the interviewcorrectly. The interview board has awarded him6 marks out of 15 whereas he is entitled tominimum 10 marks for the entire performancebased on interview and as well as extracurricular activities. The candidates who havenot answered well in the interview have beenawarded more marks and they have been selected.Moreover, the candidates who have secured lessmarks in the physical efficiency test andwritten test have been awarded 8 to 9 marks inthe interview and they have been selected.There is no transparency in the process ofselection. W.A.No.196 of 2008 (R.Sundarrajan):The appellant has not been awarded specialmarks for NCC and sports/games. The appellantis a member of NCC during college days and hasobtained "C" certificate. The appellant hasalso held the position as Under Officer whilestudying in the college. The appellant hasparticipated in the Trucking Expedition Goa1990 during the year 1990. The appellant iseligible for 1.5 marks for All India TruckingCamp and also 1 mark for serving as UnderOfficer with the qualification of "C"certificate. The appellant should have beenawarded 2.5 marks for the NCC certificate aloneas per the procedure followed for awardingspecial marks.The appellant is a sportsman whorepresented the college and has obtained meritcertificate. The appellant has attended SeniorInter District Volley Ball Championship in theyear 2005-06 conducted by the Tamil Nadu StateVolley Ball Association and has received meritcertificate. The appellant is eligible for 1mark for his sports activities representing theState.As per the procedure followed in awardingspecial marks for NCC the appellant should havebeen awarded 2.5 marks and for sports andgames, the appellant should have been awarded 2marks and in total he should have been awarded4.5 marks. Instead he has been awarded 1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ special mark. If the appellant is able tosecure 4.5 marks, then he secures the over andabove the cut off mark for selection. Theappellant has not been awarded special markswhich shows that there is total arbitrarinessin awarding marks not only for extra curricularactivities but also for viva voce. W.A.No.197 of 2008 (M.Prabhu):The appellant is a "Karate" Master and hassecured number of certificates. The appellanthas participated in the Invitational All IndiaKarate Championship held at Indoor StadiumAjmer in 2000. The appellant has obtainedmerit certificate by participating in the 25thTamil Nadu State Silver Jubilee Celebrationsheld in the year 2003. The appellant is amember of the All India Karate "DO Federation".The appellant is a black belt holder in theKarate. The appellant's meritorious performancein the Karate should have been taken intoconsideration for awarding all the 5 marksearmarked for the extra curricular activities.The respondent ought to have considered themeritorious Karate candidate who is already amember of the police department and for hisoutstanding performance he should have beenawarded all the 5 marks meant for sports andgames. It is unfortunate that Karate is a gamerecognized by the Olympics and also Tamil NaduOlympics Committee whereas the respondent haschosen to exclude the Karate from the approvedsports and games. Had he been awarded minimum 3marks for extra curricular activities, he wouldhave reached the cut off mark.The appellant has answered all the 12questions put to him in the interviewcorrectly. The interview board has awarded him2 marks out of 15 whereas he is entitled tominimum 10 marks for the entire performancebased on interview and as well as extracurricular activities. The candidates who havenot been answered well in the interview havebeen awarded more marks and they have beenselected. Moreover, the candidates who havesecured less marks in the physical efficiencytest and written test have been awarded 8 to 9marks in the interview and they have been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ selected. There is no transparency in theprocess of selection." 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State on theother hand, submitted that the interviewing committee for givingmarks towards certificates, as per the advertisement/prospectus,followed the following criteria in awarding the special marks forNSS/NCC and sports/games:Special marks of NCC: Marksa) All India Best Cadet or State Best Cadet 1.5b) Senior Under Officer or Under Officer or equivalent with 'C' Certificate 1.0c) 'C' Certificate with completion of 3 years in Sr. Division (College) and/or participation in National Programmes like R.D. Parade in Delhi. 0.5Special marks of NSS:Marksa) Winner of National NSS Award 1.5b) Winner of Tamil Nadu State NSS Award 1.0c) National Integration & Motivation camps, Inter-State Youth Exchange Programmes etc., sponsored by the Department of Youth Affairs & Sports/ State Government 0.5Special marks of Sports/Games: Marksa) For representing the country (India) in an approved Game/Sports 2.0b) For representing the State of Tamil Nadu in the National Championship in an approved Game/Sports 1.0c) For representing any University in the All India Inter-University in an approved Game/Sports 0.5List of approved Games and Sports:1.Basket Ball8.Boxing2.Foot Ball9.Gymnastics3.Hockey10.Judo4.Volley Ball11.Weight lifting5.Hand Ball12.Aquatics6.Kabbadi13.Athletics7.Wrestling14.Equitation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. We have noticed the submissions made by learned SeniorCounsel/counsel appearing for the appellants that the aforesaidcriteria of awarding the marks has been laid down by theRecruitment Board to non-suit the appellants and others, though inthe advertisement/prospectus, the candidates were informed thatthose who possess NSS/NCC and sports/games certificates will berewarded with marks, but strangely, by adopting a special procedurefor awarding marks, the appellants have been excluded. 14. Learned Senior Counsel/counsel appearing on behalf of theappellants, from the common additional typed set of papers filed inWrit Appeal Nos.1563, 1583 and 1584 of 2007, dated 26.1.2008,highlighted as to how brother and sister, both have been selectedand appointed, and that in many of the cases, the persons havingsecured lower marks, were called for interview. With regard to oneof the selected candidates, namely P.Suganthi, it was alleged thatshe is a married daughter, but has been appointed as a ward ofPolice personnel, which is not permissible.Learned counsel appearing for the State while submitting thatthe brother and sister have competed individually on their ownmerits, in regard to the said case of Suganthi, it was submittedthat though she is daughter of a Police personnel, but is also thewife of a Police employee. 15. In the present case, though during the hearing of the writappeals, general allegation was made, but no specific allegationhas been made against any individual who have been selected andappointed. No individual selected candidate has been impleaded as aparty-respondent. Therefore, in the absence of such a pleading andthey having not been impleaded, we are not inclined to decide thequestion relating to legality or propriety of selection of one orother candidate. Similarly, in the absence of any specificallegation of mala-fide against any individual member of theSelection Committee, based on any evidence, it cannot be presumedthat because of mala-fide on the part of one or otherOfficer/member, the appellants have been excluded to include one orother individual in the panel. The general allegation as madeagainst the officers/members cannot be accepted to give anyspecific finding of mala-fide against them.16. So far as direct interview/viva-voce test is concerned,only '10' marks have been fixed out of '100'. From the records, itwould be evident that during the interview, the members of theSelection Committee were to notice not only the answers given bythe candidates, but also the behaviour of the person who appearedbefore them, and the other required ability, which were to beassessed. The learned single Judge rightly observed that those https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ matters are under the exclusive domain of the members of theSelection Committee and it is not for this Court to lay aparticular method or to evolve a particular mode. 17. "The disadvantage of an oral test", fell for considerationbefore the Supreme Court from time to time. In the case of Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib reported in AIR1981 SC 487, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court noticedthe validity/permissibility of viva-voce test for consideration ofcandidates for admission to a College and in the said case,challenge was made on the ground that the viva-voce examinationdoes not afford a proper criterion for assessment of suitability ofthe candidates for admission and it is a highly subjective andimpressionistic test where the result is likely to be influenced bymany uncertain and imponderable factors, such as predictions andprejudices of the interviewer, their attitudes and approaches,preconceived notions and idiosyncrasies and it is also capable ofabuse, because it will leave scope of discrimination, manipulationand nepotism, which could remain undetected under the cover of aninterview and that it is not possible to assess the capacity andcalibre of a candidate in the course of an interview lasting onlyfor few minutes. Having noticed the commentaries on interview andearlier decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, the ConstitutionBench of the Supreme Court, in the said decision reported in AIR1981 SC 487, held as follows:"18. ..... .... It is therefore not possible to accept thecontentions of the petitioners that the oralinterview test is so defective that selectingcandidates for admission on the basis of oralinterview in addition to written test must beregarded as arbitrary. The oral interview testis undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test forassessing and evaluating the capacity andcalibre of candidates, but in the absence ofany better test for measuring personalcharacteristics and traits, the oral interviewtest must, at the present stage, be regarded asnot irrational or irrelevant though it issubjective and based on first impression, itsresult is influenced by many uncertain factorsand it is capable of abuse. We would,however, like to point out that in the matterof admission of colleges or even in the matterof public employment, the oral interview test,as presently held should not be relied upon as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ an exclusive test, but it may be resorted toonly as an additional or supplementary testand, moreover, great care must be taken to seethat persons who are appointed to conduct theoral interview test are men of high integrity,calibre and qualification. "18. In the case of State of U.P. vs. Rafiquddin, reported in1987 (Supp.) SCC 401, the Supreme Court considered the question ofappointment in the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service through thePublic Service Commission. In the said case, it was noticed thatwhile making selection for appointment to the Uttar PradeshJudicial Service, the Commission at the instance of the StateGovernment, reduced the standard of percentage of marks inaggregate and on that basis, forwarded the list of successfulcandidates for appointment to the judicial service. Again, at thebehest of the State Government, with a view to implement thedecision of the high level committee consisting of Chief Justice,Chief Minister and the Chairman of the Commission, names of certainmore candidates were forwarded. Having noticed the said fact, theSupreme Court observed in paragraph 30 that, " .... Once theCommission determines the norms and makes selection on theconclusion of the competitive examination and submits list of thesuitable candidates to the government it should not reopen theselection by lowering down the norms at the instance of theGovernment. ... "From the aforesaid decision, it would be evident that thenorms were to be fixed by the Commission, which is the selectionbody and once such norms are fixed, in such a case, even the StateGovernment is not supposed to reopen the selection by lowering downthe norms.19. So far as the additional qualification is concerned, whois to be preferred, fell for consideration before the Supreme Courtin the Secy., A.P. Public Service Commn. vs. Y.V.V.R.Srinivasulu,reported in 2003 (5) SCC 341, wherein, the Supreme Court made thefollowing observation:"11. Whenever, a selection is to be madeon the basis of merit performance involvingcompetition, and possession of any additionalqualification or factor is also envisaged toaccord preference, it cannot be for the purposeof putting them as a whole lot ahead of others,dehors their intrinsic worth or proven inter semerit and suitability, duly assessed by thecompetent authority. Preference, in the contextof all such competitive scheme of selectionwould only mean that other things beingqualitatively and quantitatively equal, thosewith the additional qualification have to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ preferred. There is no question of eliminatingall others preventing thereby even an effectiveand comparative consideration on merits, byaccording en bloc precedence in favour of thosein possession of additional qualificationirrespective of the respective merits anddemerits of all candidates to be considered. Ifit is to be viewed the way the High Court andthe Tribunal have chosen to, it would amount tofirst exhausting in the matter of selection allthose, dehors their inter se merit performance,only those in possession of additionalqualification and take only thereafterseparately those with ordinary degree and whodo not possess the additionalqualification. ...."20. In the present case, learned counsel appearing for therespondents-State has brought to the notice of the Court aninstruction contained in Letter No.1/Police (Sports)/97(1)--4,issued from the Intelligence Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs),Government of India, New Delhi, dated 25.5.1999, by the JointDirector, IB and Secretary, All India Police Sports Control Board,addressed to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu UniformedServices Recruitment Board, Chennai, wherein and whereby, thefollowing list of approved games and sports has been communicated,stating that the All India Police Sports Control Board holdscompetitions in the following events every year:1.Hockey 2.Foot Ball3.Volley Ball4.Basket Ball5.Hand Ball6.Kabbadi7.Wrestling (both Free Style and Greco Roman Style)8.Boxing9.Gymnastics10.Judo11.Weight lifting (both men and women)12.Aquatics (swimming)13.Athletics (both men and women)14. Equitation (riding horse)21. From the records as above, we find that only 14 games andsports have been approved but the games, such as Badminton, Tennis,Chess etc., have not been approved. It would be evident from thelist of approved sports that those games which are required forPolice personnel to keep them fit, have been approved. On the otherhand, other games which may not be good for Police personnel and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ may affect their service/career, such as Chess, etc., have not beenapproved. In such circumstances, if only a group of games andsports have been approved for providing marks by the RecruitmentBoard, which are beneficial to Police personnel, such markingcannot be held to be arbitrary, nor the appellants can claim marksfor other games which are not approved, such as Chess, Badminton,Tennis, etc.We have noticed that one or other appellant has obtainedcertificates in games like Chess etc., but as those games do notcome within the group of approved games and sports, they cannotclaim any mark. 22. It is for the competent authority to lay down the relevantRules. The authority can also prescribe the marks to be allottedagainst one or other tests/certificates, as shown in theadvertisement/prospectus in the present case. However, how the saidassessment is to be made for awarding such marks, for example, forawarding marks for written test, or direct interview or forcertificates, etc., it is to be left open to the Examiner/Boardwhich makes such assessment. In this background, for assessment ofcertificates such as NSS, NCC, sports and games, within the fixed"5" marks, if separate marks are given for one or othercertificates, that too based on the standard of certificate, i.e.whether it is national or state level or university level, we findno illegality in the same and it was well within the jurisdictionof the Recruitment Board/Selection Committee to prescribe suchmarks for one or other certificates. One or other candidate may produce a certificate, but suchcandidate has no right to claim as to how the certificate is to beassessed. For example, many of the appellants have claimed for 240hours or 480 hours of NSS/NCC training, some claimed on the basisof the rating of certificates such as 'A', 'B' or 'C' GradeCertificates, but it was for the Recruitment Board/SelectionCommittee to determine as to how such marking is to be given forone other other certificate.23. Though this Court is not supposed to sit in appeal overthe marking given by the Recruitment Board/Selection Committee forone or other Certificates held by one or other appellant, but justto find out whether it was proper or not, we also verified thecertificates as attached by one or other appellant in the typed setof papers. We find that most of the certificates of NSS/NCC sportsare general and not of the standard, for which the marks can beallotted as per the specification made by the RecruitmentBoard/Selection Committee, except one or other, for which markshave already been allotted. In one case, namely Mr.R.Sundarrajan(appellant in Writ Appeal No.196 of 2008), the learned Senior https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Counsel appearing for the appellants referred to one or othercertificate, to show that he was also entitled for atleast 0.5marks for one of the certificates, but even if that is accepted, wefind that he does not come within the "zone of consideration" forselection, having got lesser marks than the cut-off marks in thecategory for which he applied.So far as the sports certificates are concerned, none of themare national or state level or university level certificates, ofapproved games and sports. Therefore, no marking can be given forthat.So far as the Police Meet is concerned, it will be a nationalmeet, but cannot be held to be at the Country/State level or atNational/State level game, being confined to the Police persons.Further, as it was direct recruitment, the Police personnel mayclaim weightage against their departmental quota; but certificatesfor Police Meet cannot be relied upon for competing with theoutsiders. No separate marks could have been given for same test,one for the outsiders and one from the Departmental candidates.24. We find no illegality in the selection made by therespondents/State for appointment made to the post of S.I. ofPolice, pursuant to the Notification in Na.Ka.No.A1/2626/2006.Thus, no interference is called for in the impugned common orderpassed by the learned single Judge. 25. There being no merits, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. Nocosts. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.csto1. The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu Home (Police IV) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2. The Director General of Police/ Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.4. The Secretary to Government of TamilnaduHome (Police II) DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai-915 ccs to Mr.T. Ayngaraprabhu, Advocate, Sr. 176681 cc to the Government Pleader, Sr. 176342 ccs to mr.K. Selvaraj, Advocate, Sr. 176763 ccs to Mr.M. Ravi, Advocate, SR. 17911Dated: 28.3.2008ORDER Writ Appeal Nos.194 to 199, 317, 318 of 2008 and1598 to 1602, 1607 to 1610,1563, 1583 and 1584 of 2007Dismissing the Writ Appeals asstated within.BV (CO)kk,km,rvl,sr 17/4