Supreme Court Upholds Merit-Based Selection: Goa PSC vs. Pankaj Rane (2022)

Date of the Judgment: April 06, 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 389

Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a Public Service Commission set a minimum qualifying mark for interviews when the governing rules only specify minimum marks for the written exam? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Goa Public Service Commission. The court examined whether the Commission could introduce a minimum cut-off for interview marks, when the rules only mandated a minimum score for the written examination. This judgment clarifies the extent of the Commission’s powers in the recruitment process. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

Case Background

The Goa Public Service Commission (the appellant) issued Advertisement No. 14/16 to fill six unreserved and three reserved posts under the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016. A Computer Based Screening Test (CBRT) was held on March 5, 2017, in which 1866 candidates appeared. Only seven candidates, including the respondents, cleared this test. Following this, a written test was conducted on April 10 and 11, 2017, where only four candidates, including the respondents, qualified. Mr. Vivek Krishna Naik stood first. On May 16, 2017, the appellant decided to set a cut-off mark of 26 out of 40 for the interview. The final interviews took place on May 24, 2017. Mr. Naik was declared successful, but the results of the respondents were not declared. The respondents raised concerns about irregularities with the Chairman of the appellant and the Chief Secretary and filed applications under the Right to Information Act to understand why their results were not published. Subsequently, on July 21, 2017, a fresh advertisement was issued for 10 Junior Scale Officer posts.

Aggrieved by this, the respondents filed a writ petition on July 22, 2017, challenging the decision of the Commission. The respondents sought a direction to the Commission to prepare a select list based on the advertisement and to make recommendations to the Government. They also sought to quash the subsequent advertisement.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the Commission’s decision to impose a 65% minimum qualifying mark in the oral interview was illegal and beyond its powers. The High Court directed the Commission to prepare a select list based on the consolidated marks of the written examination and oral interview, without applying any qualifying criteria to the interview marks. The Goa Public Service Commission appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016, made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

Rule 10 of the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016, outlines the competitive examination process:

• “10. Competitive examination for direct recruitment. – (1) The Competitive Examination for direct recruitment shall comprise a written examination and an Oral Interview. The Competitive Examination shall be conducted by the Commission, in the manner notified by the Government, from time to time: Provided whenever the Goa Public Service Commission is of opinion of conducting screening test required for shortlisting of candidates, the same should be conducted by the Commission in a manner decided by the Commission from time to time.”
• Rule 10(3) specifies that the minimum passing percentage for the competitive written examination is 65% of the total marks, with some relaxations for certain categories.
• “10(5) Marks to be allotted for written examination and oral interview shall be notified in advance in the advertisement inviting applications by the Commission.”

Rule 12 of the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016, deals with the list of successful candidates:

• “12. List of successful candidates. – (1) The Commission shall forward to the Government a select list, arranged in the order of merit of the candidates which shall be determined in accordance with the aggregate marks obtained by each candidate at the competitive written examination and oral interview: Provided that if two or more candidates have secured equal number of marks in the aggregate, their order of merit shall be in the order of the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination and if the candidates have secured equal marks in the written examination then order of merit shall be as per their date of birth and if in case the date of birth is also the same then the candidate possessing higher educational qualifications will be placed higher in the merit list.”
• Rule 12(2) states that the select list should not exceed the declared number of vacancies.

The rules mandate a minimum passing percentage for the written exam but do not specify any minimum for the interview. The merit list is to be based on the aggregate marks of the written exam and the interview.

Arguments

The appellant, Goa Public Service Commission, argued that it has the constitutional power under Article 320 to fix a minimum bar for interview marks to ensure the selection of the best candidates. They contended that the High Court erred in relying on previous judgments and that the Commission was within its rights to set a high bar for interview marks. The Commission cited K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512, Yogesh Yadav v. UOI & Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 623, and M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar (1994) 6 SCC 293 to support their position. The appellant also argued that one of the respondents lacked proficiency in Konkani, an essential qualification.

The respondents argued that the Commission could not introduce a minimum qualifying mark for the interview, as the rules only specified a minimum for the written examination. They contended that the case was covered by the judgments in P. K. Ramachandra Iyer v. UOI (1984) 2 SCC 141 and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa (1987) 4 SCC 646. They argued that the Commission’s action was a violation of the statutory rules. The respondents also stated that the Commission’s decision to set a minimum interview mark was made just a week before the interview, and that the Commission was not faced with a large number of candidates. The respondents also argued that the issue of the third respondent not possessing the essential qualification was not raised in the High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the Goa Public Service Commission could introduce a minimum qualifying mark for the interview when the relevant rules only specified minimum marks for the written examination.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following cases and legal provisions:

Cases:

• P. K. Ramachandra Iyer v. UOI (1984) 2 SCC 141 – The Court relied on this case, which held that when rules specify minimum marks for the written test but not for the interview, the selection body cannot prescribe a minimum for the interview.
• Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa (1987) 4 SCC 646 – The Court followed this case, which reiterated the principle that the selection body cannot introduce additional requirements not found in the rules.
• K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512 – While the Court noted the factual distinction, it ultimately relied on the principle that rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection process has started.
• State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha (1974) 3 SCC 220 – The Court distinguished this case, noting that it did not involve a rule similar to Rule 12 of the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016.
• State of Punjab and Others v. Manjit Singh and Others (2003) (11) SCC 559 – The Court referred to this case to emphasize that a Public Service Commission cannot dilute the mandate of the rules.
• M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar (1994) 6 SCC 293 – The Court distinguished this case on facts, noting that it involved a large number of applicants.
• Yogesh Yadav v. UOI & Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 623 – The Court distinguished this case, noting that it did not involve a rule resembling Rule 12 of the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016.
• Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others (2013) 4 SCC 540 – The Court noted that this case did not involve a rule similar to Rule 12 of the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 309 of the Constitution of India – The Court noted that the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016, were made under this Article.
• Article 320 of the Constitution of India – The Court discussed the role of the Public Service Commission under this Article.
• Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016, Rule 10 – The Court analyzed this rule regarding the competitive examination process.
• Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016, Rule 12 – The Court analyzed this rule regarding the preparation of the select list.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the statutory rules and the principle that a selection body cannot introduce additional criteria not found in the rules. The Court emphasized that Rule 12 of the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016, clearly stated that the merit list should be based on the aggregate marks of the written exam and the interview, without any separate minimum for the interview.

The Court also noted that the Commission’s decision to set a minimum interview mark was made just a week before the interview, and that the Commission was not faced with a large number of candidates. This indicated that the Commission did not have a pressing need to introduce such a criterion, and that it was not a necessary step for shortlisting candidates.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of the law and the rules, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case.

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing that the plain language of the rules did not allow for the imposition of a minimum mark for the interview. The Court also highlighted that the Commission’s decision was made shortly before the interview, indicating that it was not a necessary step for shortlisting candidates. The Court’s decision was based on the principle that a selection body cannot introduce additional requirements not found in the rules.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the reasoning and the outcome. The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the existing principles of statutory interpretation and the limitations on the powers of selection bodies.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “The select list is to be sent arranged in the order of merit which, in turn, is to be determined in accordance with the aggregate marks obtained by each candidate at the competitive written examination and oral interview.”
• “The rule maker was conscious of the fact that it has prescribed a separate minimum to be obtained by candidate in the written examination. It also contemplated the holding of an interview but as regards the interview a separate minimum was not stipulated.”
• “The Commission which has been constituted under the Rules must, therefore faithfully follow the Rules. It must select candidates in accordance with the Rules. It cannot prescribe additional requirements for selection either as to eligibility or as to suitability.”

Key Takeaways

• Public Service Commissions must strictly adhere to the rules and cannot introduce additional criteria not specified in the rules.
• When rules specify minimum marks for the written test but not for the interview, the selection body cannot prescribe a minimum for the interview.
• The merit list must be based on the aggregate marks of the written exam and the interview, as specified in the rules.
• Selection bodies cannot change the rules of the game after the selection process has started.
• The timing of any decision to introduce additional criteria is crucial; such decisions must be made well in advance and not shortly before the selection process.

This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory rules in the recruitment process and clarifies the limitations on the powers of Public Service Commissions. It ensures that the selection process is fair and transparent, and that candidates are evaluated based on the criteria specified in the rules.

Directions

The Supreme Court upheld the directions given by the High Court. The Court directed the appellant to forward the list of eligible candidates to the Appointing Authority within four weeks. The Appointing Authority was directed to take a decision on the list within six weeks of receiving it.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion of any specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a Public Service Commission cannot introduce a minimum qualifying mark for the interview stage of a selection process when the relevant rules only specify minimum marks for the written examination. This judgment reinforces the principle that selection bodies must strictly adhere to the rules and cannot introduce additional criteria not specified in the rules. There was no change in the previous position of law, but the court reaffirmed the principle laid down in P. K. Ramachandra Iyer and Durgacharan Misra.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Goa Public Service Commission, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the Commission could not introduce a minimum qualifying mark for the interview when the rules only specified minimum marks for the written examination. The judgment reinforces the principle that selection bodies must strictly adhere to the rules and cannot introduce additional criteria not specified in the rules.