Supreme Court Quashes Arbitrary Selection Process for Physical Training Instructors: Nutan Kumari vs. B.R.A. Bihar University (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 12th October, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 966

Judges: Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Can a selection process for public employment be deemed arbitrary if the selection committee changes the marking criteria mid-process and conducts multiple interviews with drastically varying marks? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of Physical Training Instructors (PTIs) at B.R.A. Bihar University. The Court found that the selection process was indeed arbitrary and lacked transparency, leading to its quashing.

This judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

Case Background

The case revolves around the selection process for Physical Training Instructors (PTIs) in four constituent colleges of B.R.A. Bihar University. The University issued an advertisement on July 13, 2008, inviting applications for these positions. The advertisement specified that candidates should apply separately for each college, possess a Bachelor’s degree in Physical Education or a Graduation with a Diploma in Physical Education, and meet the age limit as per government rules.

Nutan Kumari (the appellant) and respondents No. 5 to 8, among others, applied for the positions. All candidates submitted separate applications for each of the four colleges. A Selection Committee was formed, which conducted interviews on November 6, 2008. Notably, the committee interviewed each candidate four times on the same day, once for each college. The marks awarded to candidates varied significantly across these interviews.

For example, the appellant, Nutan Kumari, received marks ranging from 12 to 24 out of 30 in the four interviews. After the interviews, a merit list was prepared, and respondents No. 5 to 8 were selected. They joined their respective posts in February 2009, and their pay scales were fixed in May 2009.

Following their appointments, complaints were lodged with the Chancellor of the University regarding the selection process. An Inquiry Committee was formed, which recommended cancellation of the appointments. The Chancellor directed the University to cancel the appointments. Consequently, the University issued show-cause notices to respondents No. 5 to 8, which they challenged in the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, Nutan Kumari filed a writ petition challenging the selection of respondents No. 5 to 8. Subsequently, respondents No. 5 to 8 also filed writ petitions challenging the show-cause notices issued to them. The Single Judge of the High Court decided all the petitions together on February 10, 2011, allowing Nutan Kumari’s petition and dismissing those of respondents No. 5 to 8. The Single Judge accepted the recommendations of the Chancellor and quashed the appointments.

Aggrieved by this decision, respondents No. 5 to 8 filed intra-court appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, in its judgment, set aside the Single Judge’s order, stating that variations in interview marks did not necessarily indicate a vitiated selection process. The Division Bench also noted that no notice was given to the respondents during the inquiry ordered by the Chancellor, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Division Bench quashed the termination orders and allowed the authorities to conduct a fresh inquiry after giving due notice to the respondents.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court emphasized that the selection process must adhere strictly to the terms and conditions of the advertisement. The Court cited several precedents to support this principle.

The Court referred to the principle that once a selection process begins, the criteria cannot be altered midstream. This is to ensure fairness and prevent a situation where a candidate might have applied had they known the criteria would be changed later. The Court also noted that the Selection Committee does not have the jurisdiction to lay down the criteria for selection unless specifically authorized by the rules.

The Court also highlighted that any relaxation of the selection procedure must be mentioned in the advertisement. The absence of such a provision would violate the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court also reiterated that a candidate does not automatically acquire a vested right of selection merely by applying for a post. However, they do acquire a right to be considered for selection as per the rules in force on the date of the advertisement.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the Division Bench erred in overturning the Single Judge’s well-reasoned judgment. The appellant highlighted the drastic variations in the marks awarded during the interviews, which could not be termed as “some variation”. She pointed out that the same Selection Committee awarded her marks ranging from 12 to 24 out of 30 on the same day, which materially affected the selection outcome.

The appellant also contended that respondent No. 6, Shri Chandrama Singh, was over-aged and ineligible for the post. She stated that he was born on April 3, 1971, and the advertisement was published on July 13, 2008. As of April 3, 2007, he was already 37 years old, exceeding the age limit on the date of the advertisement.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the variations in marks were not significant enough to vitiate the selection process. They also relied on a document showing that the University had decided to calculate the age of candidates as of January 1, 2008, which would make respondent No. 6 eligible.

The main submissions of the parties are summarized as follows:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the selection process adopted by the Selection Committee was arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
2. Whether the respondent No. 6 was ineligible for the post due to being over-aged.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several authorities to support its decision. These authorities are categorized by the legal point they address:

1. Selection Process Must Adhere to Advertisement Terms:

• Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Others v. State of Orissa and Others (1995) 6 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India: This case established that the Selection Committee cannot lay down criteria for selection unless authorized by the rules.
• B.S. Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (1980) Supp. SCC 524 – Supreme Court of India
• P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and Others v. Union of India and Others (1984) 2 SCC 141 – Supreme Court of India
• Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India and Others (1985) 3 SCC 721 – Supreme Court of India
• Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa (1987) 4 SCC 646 – Supreme Court of India

2. Relaxation of Selection Procedure Must Be Mentioned in Advertisement:

• Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Others (2011) 12 SCC 85 – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasized that any power to relax the selection procedure must be mentioned in the advertisement.
• Krishna Rai and Others v. Banaras Hindu University and Others (2022) 8 SCC 713 – Supreme Court of India

3. Candidate’s Right to Be Considered as Per Existing Rules:

• N.T. Devin Katti and Others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Others (1990) 3 SCC 157 – Supreme Court of India: This case established that candidates have a right to be considered as per the rules on the date of advertisement.
• Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat 2023 SCC OnLine SC 167 – Supreme Court of India

4. No Alteration of Selection Criteria Mid-Process:

• Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission and B. Swapna and Others (2005) 4 SCC 154 – Supreme Court of India: This case highlighted the adverse consequences of altering the selection criteria mid-process.

The following table summarizes how the authorities were used by the Court:

Judgment

The Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Division Bench and restored the judgment of the Single Judge. The Court held that the selection process was indeed arbitrary and violated established principles of fair selection.

The Court’s treatment of each submission is summarized in the following table:

The Court’s view of the authorities is summarized below:

The authorities cited by the court were used to emphasize the importance of adhering to the terms of the advertisement, not altering selection criteria mid-process, and ensuring transparency and fairness in the selection process.

• Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Others v. State of Orissa and Others [CITATION]: Used to emphasize that selection committees cannot lay down criteria unless authorized by rules.
• Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Others [CITATION]: Used to highlight that any relaxation of selection procedures must be mentioned in the advertisement.
• N.T. Devin Katti and Others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Others [CITATION]: Used to reiterate that candidates have a right to be considered as per the rules on the date of the advertisement.
• Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission and B. Swapna and Others [CITATION]: Used to emphasize the adverse consequences of altering selection criteria mid-process.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The arbitrary nature of the selection process, including the drastic variations in marks awarded during the interviews.
• The lack of transparency in the selection process, with the criteria being fixed on the date of the interview itself.
• The ineligibility of respondent No. 6 due to being over-aged.
• The need to ensure fairness and adherence to the rules in public employment.

The following table ranks the sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court:

The following table shows the ratio of fact to law that influenced the court:

The court’s reasoning for the main issue regarding the arbitrariness of the selection process can be summarized in the following logical flow:

The Court considered the argument that the variations in marks were not significant, but rejected it, emphasizing the drastic nature of the variations. The Court also rejected the argument that the age of respondent No. 6 should be calculated as of January 1, 2008, relying on the University’s stand that the cut-off date was August 1, 2008.

The final decision was reached by concluding that the entire process was vitiated due to the arbitrary and non-transparent nature of the selection process. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the terms of the advertisement and ensuring fairness in public employment.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring in the judgment.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment of the Single Judge:

“Having considered the rival submissions, in my view, the hostile discrimination and arbitrariness is writ large on the face of the records. No one with any amount of reasonable certainty knew the selection procedure or the process. It stands undisputed that the criterion were laid down only on the date of interview even then it was not made known to people. This is a clear cut case of bad and wrong administrative action. There is absolutely no transparency and such process cannot be sanctified by the Court.”

“If the advertisement itself did not provide for any differentiation or different treatment then at the time of evaluation no new criteria could be laid down.”

“Again, when we come to marks of higher qualifications and experience, no one has disclosed as to what was the criteria of awarding marks under this head. Again, it is left to the whims of the selection committee which cannot be countenanced.”

Key Takeaways

The practical implications of this judgment are:

• Selection processes for public employment must adhere strictly to the terms of the advertisement.
• Selection criteria cannot be altered mid-process.
• Selection committees cannot fix criteria on the day of the interview.
• Transparency and fairness are paramount in public employment selection processes.
• Any relaxation of the selection procedure must be mentioned in the advertisement.

The potential future impact of this judgment includes:

• Increased scrutiny of public employment selection processes.
• Greater emphasis on transparency and fairness in selection criteria.
• Reduced scope for arbitrariness in selection procedures.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the University to constitute a new Selection Committee to consider the candidature of the appellant and respondents No. 5, 7, and 8. The Court also directed that:

• A single interview should be conducted for all candidates, irrespective of the number of applications they had filed.
• No separate marks should be assigned for different qualifications, as this was not stipulated in the original advertisement.
• A common merit list should be prepared based on qualifications and interview marks.
• A seniority list should be drawn, and candidates should be assigned to colleges accordingly.
• The entire exercise should be completed within eight weeks.
• The Chancellor was given the discretion to constitute a Selection Committee in accordance with law within four weeks.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a selection process for public employment must be transparent, fair, and strictly adhere to the terms of the advertisement. Any deviation from this principle, such as altering selection criteria mid-process or conducting interviews with drastically varying marks, will render the selection process arbitrary and liable to be quashed.

This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that selection committees cannot lay down criteria for selection unless authorized by the rules and that any relaxation of the selection procedure must be mentioned in the advertisement. It also emphasizes the importance of ensuring that candidates are considered as per the rules in force on the date of the advertisement. This case does not change any previous position of law but rather reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Nutan Kumari vs. B.R.A. Bihar University underscores the importance of transparency, fairness, and adherence to established rules in public employment selection processes. The Court quashed the arbitrary selection process for Physical Training Instructors, emphasizing that selection criteria cannot be altered mid-process and that any relaxation of rules must be clearly stated. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the need for integrity in public service appointments.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories:

• Public Employment
• Selection Process
• Arbitrary Selection
• Transparency in Selection
• Fair Selection
• Recruitment Rules
• Age Limit
• Advertisement Terms
• Article 14
• Article 16

Parent Category: Constitution of India

Child Categories:

• Article 14, Constitution of India
• Article 16, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Nutan Kumari vs. B.R.A. Bihar University case?

A: The main issue was whether the selection process for Physical Training Instructors (PTIs) at B.R.A. Bihar University was arbitrary and illegal due to inconsistent marking and undisclosed criteria.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court quashed the selection process, deeming it arbitrary and lacking transparency. The Court restored the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court, which had initially quashed the appointments.

Q: Why was the selection process considered arbitrary?

A: The selection process was considered arbitrary because the Selection Committee fixed the marking criteria on the day of the interviews, which was not disclosed in the advertisement or to the candidates. Additionally, the marks awarded to candidates varied drastically across multiple interviews conducted on the same day.

Q: What was the role of the advertisement in the case?

A: The Supreme Court emphasized that the selection process must adhere strictly to the terms and conditions of the advertisement. The Court held that the selection committee cannot lay down criteria for selection unless authorized by the rules, and any relaxation of the selection procedure must be mentioned in the advertisement.

Q: What was the issue with the age of one of the selected candidates?

A: Respondent No. 6 was found to be over-aged and ineligible for the post. The Court relied on the University’s stand that the cut-off date for determining age was August 1, 2008, and respondent No. 6 exceeded the maximum age limit.

Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment?

A: The key takeaways are that selection processes for public employment must be transparent, fair, and strictly adhere to the terms of the advertisement. Selection criteria cannot be altered mid-process, and selection committees cannot fix criteria on the day of the interview.

Q: What directions did the Supreme Court give for a fresh selection process?

A: The Supreme Court directed the University to constitute a new Selection Committee, conduct a single interview for all candidates, not assign separate marks for different qualifications, prepare a common merit list, and complete the entire exercise within eight weeks.

Q: What is the ratio decidendi of this case?

A: The ratio decidendi is that a selection process for public employment must be transparent, fair, and strictly adhere to the terms of the advertisement. Any deviation from this principle will render the selection process arbitrary and liable to be quashed.