Supreme Court Upholds Cut-off Marks in Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Exam: Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Tage Habung (2013)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 1, 2013
Citation: 2013 INSC 325
Judges: Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice M.Y. Eqbal

Can a Public Service Commission change the rules of the game mid-selection? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case concerning the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. The core issue revolved around the legality of applying a cut-off mark for each subject in the main examination after the recruitment process had already begun. This judgment clarifies the extent to which a recruiting body can alter selection criteria during an ongoing recruitment process. The bench comprised of Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice M.Y. Eqbal, who authored the judgment.

Case Background

The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) initiated a recruitment process for Group A and B posts in 2006. The Commission advertised the Combined Competitive Examination (Preliminary) on July 25, 2006. Initially, there was no mention of minimum qualifying marks in the advertisement. However, on June 13, 2007, the Commission decided to fix a minimum cut-off mark of 40% in English. This decision was notified on July 2, 2007. The Main Examination commenced on December 26, 2007. Subsequently, on July 11, 2008, the Commission published a list of candidates who qualified in General English by securing 40% marks. However, before the completion of the Main Examination, the State Government issued an Office Memorandum (O.M.) on January 7, 2008, prescribing a cut-off of 33% marks in each subject.

This O.M. was adopted by the Commission on April 16, 2008. This led to a situation where some candidates who had appeared for the main examination were disqualified because they did not meet the new cut-off criteria. Consequently, some candidates filed a writ petition challenging the decision of the Commission to fix 40% marks in English. They also challenged the applicability of the O.M.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The unqualified candidates filed a writ petition challenging the 40% cut-off in English. A single judge of the Gauhati High Court ruled that the Commission could not fix minimum qualifying marks for a particular subject. The court directed the Commission to evaluate all papers based on the 33% cut-off fixed by the State Government. Another writ petition was filed by candidates who were not selected for the interview because they failed to secure 33% marks in English. The High Court held that the 33% cut-off could not be applied retrospectively. The conflicting views led to a reference to a Division Bench.

Legal Framework

The legal framework for this case includes the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2001. Rule 2(a) defines the Combined Competitive Examination as the examination conducted by the APPSC for recruitment to various posts. Rule 3 states that the Commission shall hold the Combined Competitive Examination every year. Rule 11 states that candidates who obtain minimum qualifying marks in the Preliminary Examination, as fixed by the Commission, shall be admitted to the Main Examination. Similarly, candidates who obtain minimum marks in the Main (Written) Examination, as fixed by the Commission, shall be called for an interview. Rule 12 outlines the process for arranging candidates in order of merit after the interview. The Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated January 7, 2008, prescribed that candidates must secure a minimum of 33% marks in each written paper and 45% aggregate to be eligible for the viva voce test. The Commission adopted this O.M. on April 16, 2008.

Rule 11 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Combined Civil Service Examination Rules, 2001 states:
“Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the Preliminary Examination as may be fixed by the Commission at their discretion shall be admitted to the Main Examination, and candidates who obtain such minimum marks in the Main (Written) Examination as may be fixed by the Commission at their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview for personality and other tests.”

Arguments

The petitioners argued that the condition to secure 33% in each individual paper to qualify for the viva voce test unreasonably restricted their right to be tested in the interview. They contended that the advertisement for the Combined Competitive Examination dated July 25, 2006, did not contain such a restriction, nor did the rules. Therefore, the restriction imposed by the O.M. dated January 7, 2008, was not valid. The petitioners also argued that the selection criteria cannot be made applicable retrospectively. They relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in A.A. Calton vs. The Director of Education & Anr., AIR 1983 SC 1143.

The Commission argued that it had the power to fix minimum qualifying marks for shortlisting candidates for the interview. It contended that the 33% cut-off was a reasonable measure to ensure that only suitable candidates were called for the interview. The Commission also submitted that it had, in the past, conducted written examinations fixing cut-off marks under Rule 11 of the 2001 Rules.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the Office Memorandum dated January 7, 2008, issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and adopted by the Public Service Commission on April 16, 2008, prescribing the cut-off marks of 33% or more to be secured in each written examination paper in the Arunachal Pradesh Service Combined Competitive Examination (Main) 2006-07, is permissible after the commencement of the recruitment process and applicable to the candidates who already took the Main Examination initiated in pursuance of the advertisement dated July 25, 2006.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered Rule 11 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Combined Civil Service Examination Rules, 2001, which empowers the Commission to fix minimum qualifying marks.

Judgment

The Supreme Court distinguished the cases of A.A. Calton vs. The Director of Education & Anr., AIR 1983 SC 1143* and Sushil Kumar Ghosh vs. State of Assam & Others, 1993 (1) GLR 315*, stating that they were not applicable to the present case. The Court observed that the Commission’s decision to fix 40% as qualifying marks in English was unreasonable. However, the Court held that the subsequent O.M. issued by the State Government on January 7, 2008, and adopted by the Commission on April 16, 2008, was valid. The Court stated that the Commission had the power to fix minimum qualifying marks for shortlisting candidates for the interview. The Court also noted that the 33% cut-off was a reasonable measure to ensure that only suitable candidates were called for the interview.

The Court relied on the case of K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 395* to hold that fixing minimum qualifying marks is permissible. The Court also relied on Hemani Malhotra Etc. vs. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11* to state that minimum marks for interview cannot be prescribed after the selection process has started. The Court also cited Inder Parkash Gupta vs. State of J&K & Others 2004 (6) SCC 786* to state that the Commission must follow statutory rules. Further, the Court cited Union of India & Ors. vs. S. Vinodh Kumar & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 100* to state that the employer has the power to fix cut-off marks.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain a balance between the flexibility of the recruiting body and the fairness of the selection process. The Court emphasized that while it is essential to have some criteria for shortlisting candidates, these criteria should not be arbitrary or unreasonable. The Court also highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory rules and ensuring that the selection process is transparent and fair. The Court acknowledged the Commission’s power to fix cut-off marks for shortlisting candidates, but also stressed that such powers should be exercised judiciously.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court stated, “The fixation of qualifying marks as 33% in the written examination cannot be held to be illegal or arbitrary action of the Commission merely because it was notified in the process of conducting recruitment tests.”

The Court also observed, “There cannot be any dispute that the merit of a candidate and his suitability is always assessed with reference to his performance at the examination.”

Further, the Court noted, “It is now well settled that fixing the qualifying marks in the viva voce test after the commencement of the process of selection is not justified but fixing some criteria for qualifying a candidate in the written examination is necessary in order to shortlist the candidates for participating in the interview.”

Key Takeaways

• The Public Service Commission has the power to fix minimum qualifying marks in written examinations for shortlisting candidates.
• Cut-off marks can be applied during the recruitment process, provided they are reasonable and not arbitrary.
• While it is preferable to specify cut-off marks in the initial advertisement, it is not mandatory.
• The Court emphasized that the selection process must be transparent and fair.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Public Service Commission has the power to fix minimum qualifying marks in the written examination for shortlisting candidates. This judgment clarifies that while it is desirable to specify cut-off marks in the initial advertisement, it is not mandatory, and such criteria can be applied during the recruitment process, provided they are reasonable and not arbitrary. This ruling reinforces the Commission’s authority to conduct examinations and shortlist candidates while ensuring that the selection process is fair and transparent. The court did not change the previous position of law, but clarified the ambit of the power of the Commission to fix cut-off marks.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court upheld the validity of the 33% cut-off marks in each subject for the main examination, stating that the Commission had the power to fix such criteria for shortlisting candidates. This judgment provides clarity on the extent to which recruiting bodies can alter selection criteria during an ongoing recruitment process, emphasizing the need for a balance between flexibility and fairness.