Supreme Court on Arbitrary Denial of Marks for PG Degree in Teacher Recruitment: Manoj Kumar vs. Union of India (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: February 20, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 126

Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can an educational institution change the rules of the game mid-way through a selection process? The Supreme Court recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the appointment of a primary school teacher. The court examined whether an institution could arbitrarily deny marks to a candidate for possessing a Post Graduate (PG) degree, by adding a new condition that the degree must be in a “relevant subject” after the selection process had already begun. This case highlights the importance of fair and transparent recruitment processes and the limits of institutional discretion. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Case Background

In March 2016, the Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute for the Physically Handicapped (hereafter referred to as ‘the Institute’) advertised vacancies for primary school teachers. The advertisement specified that candidates needed a senior secondary qualification with a two-year diploma or certificate in ETE/JBT or B.El.Ed., and must have passed secondary level with Hindi as a subject. The selection process included an interview.

However, on April 27, 2016, the Institute changed the selection process, dispensing with the interview and instead allocating marks for essential qualifications, additional qualifications, essential experience, and a written test. Specifically, 10 marks were allocated for additional qualifications, with a PG Diploma getting 5 marks, a PG Degree 6 marks, MPhil/Professional Qualification in the Field 7 marks, and a PhD 10 marks.

The appellant, Manoj Kumar, possessed a PG Degree. When the results were declared on May 22, 2017, he was denied the 6 marks for his PG Degree on the ground that it was not in a “relevant subject.” He had secured 57.5 marks, while respondent no. 3, who had a Master’s in Education (M.Ed.), secured 58.25 marks, including 7 marks for her professional qualification. Had the appellant been awarded the 6 marks for his PG Degree, he would have topped the list with 63.5 marks.

Aggrieved by the denial of marks, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, seeking a direction to the Institute to award him the 6 marks. The Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed his petition, citing judicial restraint in academic matters and relying on clauses in the vacancy circular that gave the Institute the right to shortlist candidates as it deemed appropriate.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, challenging the denial of 6 marks for his PG Degree. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, relying on the principle of judicial restraint in academic matters and citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) [(2013) 10 SCC 519]. The Single Judge held that the qualifying criteria should be left to the discretion of the concerned institution.

The appellant then filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench also dismissed the appeal, reiterating the principle of judicial restraint in academic matters and referring to the judgments in Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1980) 3 SCC 97] and All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [(2009) 11 SCC 726]. The Division Bench also relied on Clauses 14 and 19 of the vacancy circular, which reserved the Institute’s right to shortlist applications.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court in 2019.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the vacancy circular issued by the Institute and the subsequent notification changing the selection process. The relevant clauses of the vacancy circular are:

• Clause 14: “Decision of the institute in all matters regarding eligibility of the candidate, the stages at which such scrutiny of eligibility is to be undertaken, the documents to be produced for the purpose of conduct of interview, selection and any other matter relating to recruitment will be final and binding on the candidate. Further, the institute reserves the right to stall/ cancel the recruitment partially/ fully at any stage during the recruitment process at its discretion, which will be final and binding on the candidate.”
• Clause 19: “Fulfilment of conditions of minimum qualification shall not necessarily entitle any applicant to be called for further process of recruitment, in case of large number of applications, Institute reserves the right to short-list applications in any manner as may be considered appropriate and no reason for rejection shall be communicated and no claim for refund of fee shall be entertained in any case.”

The Institute relied on these clauses to argue that they had the discretion to shortlist candidates and to introduce the requirement of a “relevant subject” for the PG Degree.

The notification dated April 27, 2016, which dispensed with the interview and prescribed the allocation of marks for additional qualifications, is also central to the case. The relevant portion of the notification is as follows:

SL Particulars Marks

2. Marks for Additional Qualifications (Maximum) 10

a PG Diploma 5

b PG Degree 6

c MPhil/ Professional Qualification in the Field 7

d PhD 10

Arguments

The appellant argued that the denial of 6 marks for his PG Degree was illegal and arbitrary. He contended that the Institute introduced a new criterion of “relevant subject” after the selection process had begun, which was not mentioned in the original advertisement or the notification for allocation of marks. He submitted that if he had been allocated the 6 marks for his PG Degree, he would have topped the list.

The respondents, on the other hand, relied on Clauses 14 and 19 of the vacancy circular, arguing that the Institute had the right to shortlist applications and to interpret the qualifications as they deemed appropriate. They contended that the appellant was not entitled to the 6 marks because his PG Degree was not in a “relevant subject.”

The respondents also argued that the courts should not interfere in academic matters and that the Institute’s decision should be respected. They supported their argument by referring to the judgments in University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) [(2013) 10 SCC 519], Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1980) 3 SCC 97] and All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [(2009) 11 SCC 726].

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the denial of 6 marks for the additional qualification of a PG Degree to the appellant, on the ground that it was not in a “relevant subject,” was illegal and arbitrary.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court. The Court held that the denial of 6 marks to the appellant for his PG Degree was illegal and arbitrary.

The Court observed that the Institute had changed the selection process mid-way by dispensing with the interview and introducing marks for additional qualifications. However, the appellant did not challenge this change. The Court noted that the Institute cannot introduce new criteria, such as the requirement of a “relevant subject” for a PG Degree, after the selection process has begun.

The Court also held that Clauses 14 and 19 of the vacancy circular could not be interpreted to give the Institute unbridled discretion to pick and choose candidates by supplying new criteria to the prescribed qualifications.

The Court, however, noted that the school for which the advertisement was issued had been closed on April 1, 2023. Therefore, the Court could not direct the Institute to employ the appellant.

In view of this, the Court directed the Institute to pay the appellant a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and costs of Rs. 25,000/-.

The following authorities were viewed by the Court as follows:

✓ University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) [(2013) 10 SCC 519]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that while judicial restraint is important in academic matters, it cannot justify arbitrary actions.

✓ Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1980) 3 SCC 97]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that while judicial restraint is important in academic matters, it cannot justify arbitrary actions.

✓ All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [(2009) 11 SCC 726]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that while judicial restraint is important in academic matters, it cannot justify arbitrary actions.

✓ Clauses 14 and 19 of the vacancy circular: The Court rejected the interpretation that these clauses gave the Institute unbridled discretion to change the rules of the game mid-way.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that an institution cannot arbitrarily change the rules of the selection process after it has commenced. The Court emphasized that while institutions have the flexibility to conduct recruitment, this flexibility cannot be used to introduce new criteria that disadvantage candidates who meet the originally prescribed qualifications. The Court also highlighted the importance of transparency and fairness in public employment. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that the Institute had not specified the requirement of a “relevant subject” for the PG Degree in its original advertisement or notification, and that the category for professional qualification already addressed specialization.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by legal considerations, specifically the interpretation of the vacancy circular and the principles of fairness and transparency in public employment. While the factual aspects of the case (such as the closure of the school) were considered, the legal analysis played a more significant role in the final judgment.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Institutions cannot introduce new criteria for qualifications after the selection process has commenced.
• Flexibility in the selection process cannot be used to arbitrarily disadvantage candidates who meet the originally prescribed qualifications.
• The principles of fairness and transparency are paramount in public employment.
• Courts will not hesitate to intervene in cases of arbitrary action, even in academic matters.
• Even if a specific relief cannot be granted due to subsequent developments, the Court can award compensation for arbitrary actions.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Institute (respondent no. 2) to pay the appellant a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and costs of Rs. 25,000/- within six weeks from the date of the order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that institutions cannot arbitrarily change the rules of the selection process after it has commenced. This judgment reinforces the principle that while institutions have the flexibility to conduct recruitment, this flexibility cannot be used to introduce new criteria that disadvantage candidates who meet the originally prescribed qualifications. It also highlights the importance of transparency and fairness in public employment. This case clarifies that while judicial restraint is important in academic matters, it does not mean that courts cannot intervene in cases of arbitrary action.

Conclusion

In Manoj Kumar vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that an institution cannot arbitrarily deny marks to a candidate for possessing a Post Graduate (PG) degree by introducing a new criterion of “relevant subject” after the selection process had commenced. The Court emphasized the importance of fairness and transparency in public employment and held that while institutions have the flexibility to conduct recruitment, this flexibility cannot be used to disadvantage candidates who meet the originally prescribed qualifications. Although the Court could not direct the Institute to employ the appellant due to the closure of the school, it awarded compensation for the arbitrary actions of the Institute. This judgment serves as a reminder that institutions must adhere to the rules they set and cannot change them mid-way through a selection process.