T.R. Ramachandran Nair & Ors. v. TheAdmission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges(2007 (3) KLT 136) laying down that & Anr.

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -W.P.(C) No.30266 of 2009-C - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009.JUDGMENTThe writ petition is one challenging the ranked list Ext.P10 forappointment to the post of Lecturer in Economics under the CollegiateEducation Department. The petitioner herein was an applicant to the post.He is rank No.63 in Ext.P10 list.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the method adopted by the PublicService Commission in awarding credit marks for academic qualificationalong with the marks obtained in the written test and the marks awarded inthe interview. It is submitted that the same is in gross violation of rule 3 ofKerala Public Service commission Rules of Procedure.3. Gong by the notification, the required qualifications are: (a)Masters degree in the concerned subject with at least 55% marks or itsequivalent and good academic record, (b) must have passed acomprehensive test in the concerned subject specifically conducted for thepurpose by UGC or any agency duly constituted by the State Governmentin this behalf and (c) when qualifications are being equal, preference shallbe given to candidates who possess adequate knowledge in Malayalam. The wpc 30266/20092petitioner has got a further case that in Ext.P1 notification also noindication was given as regards the grant of credit marks.4. The petitioner's qualification is M.A. Economic degree fromUniversity of Calicut in the year 1997, qualified UGC - NET in Economicsin the year 2000 and Ph.D. in Economics from M.G. University in the year2009. He is having an aggregate teaching experience of 12 years also.5. As noticed, the main contention raised by the petitioner is that Rule3 of the Rules of procedure provides only certain types of examinations forcandidates for selection to particular posts. The award of credit marks onthe basis of qualifying examination is not provided in the Rule. Rule 11(ii)of the Rules of Procedure has to be read along with Rule 3. It is furthersubmitted that Clause 202 of the Kerala Public Service Commission OfficeManual is in conflict with the Rules of Procedure.6. Heard Shri R. Surendran, learned counsel for the petitioner andShri Alexander Thomas, learned Standing Counsel for the Public ServiceCommission. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the Commission submitted that theissue is covered against the petitioner in the light of the decision of aDivision Bench of this Court in Sajan N. Menon v. State of Kerala (2007 wpc 30266/20093(4) KLT 126) and that of the Apex Court in Anzar Ahmad v. State ofBihar and others (AIR 1994 SC 141).8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that thesubstantial question raised herein is not one considered by the DivisionBench while rendering the judgment in Sajan N. Menon's case (supra) andtherefore the matter requires a reference to the larger Bench. Therefore, thedictum laid down in the above decision will have to be considered forappreciating the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.9. In fact, there was an earlier decision of the Division Bench inMohanan v. Public Service Commission (1994 (2) KLT 585, thecorrectness of which was doubted by the learned Single Judge and in theabove circumstances, the matter was placed before the Division Bench inSajan N. Menon's case (supra). The true interpretation of clause 202 ofthe P.S.C. Office Manual and Rule 11(ii) of the P.S.C. Rules of Procedurecame up for consideration before the Division Bench. The Bench was ofthe view that the written test alone cannot be said to be a sure method andthat the marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examinationscannot be said to be not a yardstick to measure merit, even if the candidatesqualify themselves in various examinations conducted by different wpc 30266/20094educational institutions. The conclusions of the Bench is evident fromparagraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment which are as follows:“Written test is only a method of selection, primarily intended toprovide a common platform to ensure equality between thecandidates. But it cannot be said that it is the only sure and safemethod to find out the best of the lot. Independent of that or addedto that - any other method which would still help the appointingauthority or even the Entrance Examiner for admission toprofessional colleges to find out the best should be welcomed, provided the method is fair and reasonable. Marks obtained bycandidates in the qualifying examinations cannot be said to be nota yardstick to measure merit, even if the candidates qualifythemselves in various examinations conducted by differenteducational institutions of course the inequality between thequalifying examinations should be reduced by adopting a system ofequalisation of marks through normalisation process. To ignorethe marks obtained by a candidate in the qualifying examination asa whole may be suicidal, after all, students take a qualifyingexamination after undergoing a system of education whichdevelops their overall personality. If we ignore the qualifyingexamination completely that would affect the very standard ofeducation in the State because the students would be concentratingmore on the Entrance Examination rather than the qualifyingexamination. Common Entrance Test causes undue hardship andharassment to the socially and economically backward ad weaker wpc 30266/20095section of the people hailing from both urban and rural areas. Forgetting higher ranks in the common entrance examination it is analmost accepted fact that the candidates have to undergo rigorouscoaching in Coaching Centres which many of the students from themarginalised sections of the society can ill-afford. But byreckoning the marks in the qualifying examination by employing anormalisation method, inequality between the standard ofeducation prevailing in various universities and other educationalinstitutions can be minimised to a large extent. Results of aqualifying examination is generally a reflection of the overallstandard of the candidate and his perception. P.S.C. in our viewhas taken a conscious decision to give weightage for credits to themarks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examinationfollowing a method of grading which would only increase thequality of selection, consequently a better qualified and meritoriouscandidate could be selected for the post, a method which even canbe tested for admission to the Professional Courses.”10. In fact, in para 8 of the judgment, the empowerment of theCommission as a Constitutional functionary as laid down in Article 320 ofthe Constitution of India, was adverted to. The Bench was of the view thatin accordance with Rule 11(ii) read with clause 202 of the P.S.C. OfficeManual, the P.S.C. follows a system of grading. The question whether thisCourt could interfere with the method adopted by the P.S.C., under Article226 of the Constitution of India, was also examined in para 9 of the wpc 30266/20096judgment and it was answered in the following words:“Constitutional body like the P.S.C. invested with the task ofselecting best suitable person for the post, has evolved a methodwhich they believe would minimise the inequality between thecandidates who have come out of qualifying examinationsconducted by various Universities and Educational Institutions. thequestion is, in the absence of a better system suggested, whether theP.S.C. can be found fault with, in following the above mentionedsystem which, to a large extent, though not fully, eliminatesinequality. Courts sitting under Art. 226 of the Constitution ofIndia in such a situation would be slow to unsettle a processfollowed by P.S.C., which according to that expert body wouldbring the candidates to a common platform while testing theirmerits in the qualifying examinations. Such a method, in our view, cannot be termed as arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of theConstitution of India.”The decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Kerala SelfFinancing Engineering College Managements Association v. TheAdmission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges & another(2007 (3) KLT 136) laying down that adopting a method of equalisation, marks awarded in the qualifying examination can also be reckoned, wasalso relied upon.11. Thus, the issue is clearly covered against the petitioner in the wpc 30266/20097light of the above decision of the Division Bench. Learned counsel for thepetitioner relied upon Rules 3 and 10 of the P.S.C. Rules of Procedure, which are extracted below:“3. The Commission may conduct all or any one or more of thefollowing examinations to assess the merits of candidatesconsidered for recruitment to a service or post;(i) Written Examination(ii) Practical Test(iii) Physical Efficiency Test(iv) Oral Test (interview)(v) Any other test or examination which the Commission maydeem fit to hold.10. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules theCommission may in consultation with the Government adopt forpurposes of recruitment in any particular cases or class of cases aspecial procedure as more appropriate than the one prescribed inany of these rules.”It is submitted that when a different procedure has to be adopted, it can onlybe in terms of Rule 10 and admittedly as the P.S.C. has not adopted theprocedure herein in the manner contained in Rule 10, it cannot berecognised. It is also submitted that as Rule 3 is exhaustive in the matter, the said method alone can be adopted by the P.S.C. wpc 30266/2009812. It is evident that Rule 10 envisage a different situation altogether.If the Commission seeks to introduce a different procedure in the matter ofselection of candidates, then alone Rule 10 will come into effect. This isevident from the non-obstante clause contained therein. Herein, theCommission has adopted a particular method, by issuance of notificationfor calling applications. A written test and interview were conducted. That is in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure There is specificconferment of power under Rule 11(ii) to take a decision in regard to theaward of marks. Clause 202 of the P.S.C. Office Manual is extractedbelow:“202. Basis of Marking:(i) If selection to a post is finalised by written test andinterview, the maximum marks for interview shall be 20% ofthe maximum marks for the Written Test. The Basis ofranking in such cases shall be marks for the Written Test +marks for the interview.(ii) In the case of selections finalised on the basis ofqualifying marks and interview, the basis of marking will bepercentage of marks for the qualifying examination plusinterview marks out of 20.(iii) If the selection is made on the basis of the aggregate of thepercentage of marks for the qualifying examination, percentageof marks for the written test and the marks for the interview, wpc 30266/20099the maximum marks for the interview should be fixed as 40.(iv) If the selection is made on the basis of practical test andinterview, the basis of marking should be grade marks for thepractical test plus interview marks out of 25.(v) In cases where selection is made on the basis of interviewalone, the marks for the interview should be out of 100.(vi) In cases where the selection is to be finalised on the basisof written test, practical test and interview, the basis ofmarking will be marks for the written test + Grade Mark forthe Practical test + interview mark out of 25.(vii) Basis of marking in respect of Teaching Posts in thecolleges (General as well s professional) shall be percentage ofmarks for the Written Test + Credit for the percentage ofacademic marks upto a maximum of 50 + Interview marks outof 30.(viii) In respect of teaching posts in the Colleges (General) aswell as professional) where the academic marks secured bycandidates also have to be reckoned with for the purpose ofranking the academic marks will be converted into propergrades and credit marks awarded.” A conjoint effect of all the three provisions thus enable the Commission toaward credit marks.12. The argument that clause 202 of the Office Manual goes againstthe specific provisions of Rule 3 cannot therefore be accepted. Apart from wpc 30266/200910that, the Commission is a repository power under Article 320 of theConstitution of India. Therefore, for achieving the object of conducting aproper selection, they are entitled to adopt such procedures which are notarbitrary and illegal. As held by the Division Bench in Sajan N. Menon'scase (supra), the method of awarding credit marks cannot be said to beillegal and if qualifying examination is ignored, that would affect the verystandard of education in the State. In that view of the matter also, thepetitioner's contention cannot be accepted. 13. Learned Standing Counsel for the Commission also relied uponthe decision of the Apex Court in Anzar Ahmad's case (AIR 1994 SC 141)wherein a similar method was held to be legal and valid. the Apex Courtheld thus:“Where the Public Service Commission o, the basis of letter of Govt.clearly stating that selection should be made on the basis of interviewcould have made the selection wholly on the basis of marks obtainedat the interview but in accordance with the past practice, theCommission made the selection on the basis of interview whilekeeping in view the academic performance and with that end in viewthe Commission has allocated 50% marks for academic performanceand 50% marks for interview, it could not be said that the procedureadopted by the Commission suffered from the vice of arbitrariness.By giving equal weight to academic performance the Commission wpc 30266/200911had rather reduced the possibility of arbitrariness.” I respectfully follow the decision of the Division Bench in Sajan N.Menon's case (2007 (4) KLT 126). Therefore, the writ petition is notliable to be entertained and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)kav/