Supreme Court Upholds Selection Criteria Based on Experience in Junior Lab Technician Appointment: Srinivas K Gouda vs. Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 08 October 2021
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 6217 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 15458 of 2017)
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and BV Nagarathna, J
Can a selection committee consider a candidate’s work experience, especially in government medical institutions, even if the initial job advertisement did not explicitly require it? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the appointment of a Junior Lab Technician. The core issue was whether the selection committee acted fairly in giving preference to candidates with experience in government medical institutions. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice BV Nagarathna, delivered the judgment. Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud authored the judgment.

Case Background

On September 2, 2008, the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) issued a notification for 35 Junior Lab Technician vacancies. The notification specified the age limits and educational qualifications, which included a pass in PUC with Chemistry and Laboratory Technician Training Course or equivalent qualifications.

Both the appellant, Sri Srinivas K Gouda, and the third respondent applied for the post under the 1(OBC) category, which had one vacancy. The Selection Committee decided that 85% of the marks would be based on the qualifying exam, 10% on experience, and 5% on a personality assessment during the interview. Preference was given to candidates with experience in government/autonomous medical college teaching hospitals, as it was believed that such candidates would be more suitable for the job at KIMS.

The appellant had scored 66.77% and the third respondent had scored 76.3% in the qualifying exam. However, the appellant received 9.5 marks for experience and 4.5 marks for personality, while the third respondent received only 1 mark each in these categories. As a result, the appellant secured 70.86 marks in total, while the third respondent secured 66.84 marks. Consequently, the appellant was appointed on April 21, 2009.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The third respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka challenging the appellant’s appointment, arguing that he had scored higher marks in the qualifying exam. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, noting the advertisement stipulated that candidates with PUC must have two years of experience and the third respondent did not have the required experience.

The third respondent then appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court, arguing that the selection process was biased towards ‘insider’ candidates and that the advertisement did not specify experience for the Junior Lab Technician post. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, quashing the appellant’s selection and directing the consideration of the third respondent for the post. The Division Bench held that the selection criteria was decided after the advertisement and that the marking was arbitrary.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to Bye-law No. 10 of the first respondent, which allows for relaxation of age and other conditions at the discretion of the appointing authority to utilize the best talent and experience. However, the advertisement did not mention this bye-law.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the marks allotted for experience and interview were not arbitrary. He had one year of experience in a private institute and three years and one month in a government medical institution.
• The Selection Committee had the power to evolve criteria to determine the suitability of candidates, even if experience was not a minimum qualification.
• The committee decided to give more weightage to those with experience in the government sector because they would be more familiar with the working conditions at KIMS.
• The third respondent did not challenge the entire selection list, but only the selection of the appellant.
• The selection list was challenged before the Karnataka High Court in Nagaraj v. Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, which was dismissed and not appealed.

Third Respondent’s Arguments:

• The advertisement did not prescribe an experience criterion.
• The Selection Committee uniformly gave high marks for experience and interview to selected candidates and low marks to those not selected.
• The rules of the game were changed after the selection process had begun.
• The merit list shows that the Selection Committee arbitrarily awarded marks for experience.

The innovativeness of the argument of the appellant was that the selection committee has the power to evolve criteria for determining the suitability of candidates among those who fulfill the minimum criteria mentioned in the advertisement.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the marks allotted to the appellant under the heads of experience and interview were arbitrary.
2. Whether the Selection Committee had the power to evolve criteria for determining the suitability of candidates among those who fulfill the minimum criteria mentioned in the advertisement.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• K Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh [CITATION: (2008) 3 SCC 512] – Supreme Court of India: The court discussed the principle that minimum marks for interviews cannot be introduced after the selection process has commenced.
• Bishnu Biswas v. Union of India [CITATION: (2014) 5 SCC 774] – Supreme Court of India: The court discussed that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection process has been initiated.
• Nagaraj v. Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences – High Court of Karnataka: The court considered this case to emphasize the fact that the selection list was not challenged in its entirety and the order of the Single Judge had attained finality.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Bye-law No. 10 of the first respondent, which allows for relaxation of age and other conditions at the discretion of the appointing authority to utilize the best talent and experience.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• K Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh [CITATION: (2008) 3 SCC 512]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the principle of not changing rules mid-selection was not applicable, as the respondent had not challenged the selection list or the inclusion of the experience and the interview component.
• Bishnu Biswas v. Union of India [CITATION: (2014) 5 SCC 774]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the principle of not changing rules mid-selection was not applicable, as the respondent had not challenged the selection list or the inclusion of the experience and the interview component.
• Nagaraj v. Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences: The Court followed this case to emphasize that the selection list was not challenged in its entirety and the order of the Single Judge had attained finality.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the third respondent did not challenge the entire selection list, but only his non-selection. The Court also emphasized that the Selection Committee had the authority to determine the suitability of candidates based on reasonable criteria, such as experience in government institutions. The Court also noted that the appellant had more years of experience and that the Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee.

The Court’s reasoning was influenced by the following points:

The Court considered the argument that the selection criteria was changed after the selection process had begun. However, it rejected this argument, stating that the third respondent had not challenged the inclusion of experience and interview as selection criteria.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment of the Single Judge in Nagaraj v. Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences:

“Taking into consideration the marks secured by the candidate in the examination, performance, experience certificate, certificate issued by the concerned authorised officer regarding their experience, practical knowledge of work in the lab, all the candidates herein are selected on merit basis having regard to their better marks, better experience.”

The Court also quoted from K Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh [CITATION: (2008) 3 SCC 512]:

“We have no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for the written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written exam but not for the interview[…]. But if the Selection Committee wants to prescribe minimum marks, it should do so before the commencement of selection process.”

The Court also noted that the Division Bench had transgressed the limits of challenge in the writ petition by determining the legality of the selection list and perusing the entire selection list to determine whether the selection of the appellant was arbitrary.

The Supreme Court did not have any minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Selection committees can consider experience as a factor for determining the suitability of candidates, even if the initial job advertisement does not specify it as a mandatory requirement.
• Preference can be given to candidates with experience in government institutions if it is rationally related to the job requirements.
• Candidates must challenge the entire selection list if they believe the selection criteria is flawed.
• Courts will not interfere with the decisions of selection committees unless there is evidence of bias or arbitrariness.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and upheld the selection of the appellant.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a selection committee can consider experience as a factor for determining the suitability of candidates, even if the initial job advertisement does not specify it as a mandatory requirement. This judgment reinforces the authority of selection committees to determine the suitability of candidates based on reasonable criteria. There is no change in the previous positions of law as the Court has distinguished the authorities cited by the third respondent.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the Selection Committee was justified in giving weightage to experience, particularly in government institutions, and that the third respondent’s challenge was limited to his non-selection and not the entire selection process. The Court also held that the third respondent had not challenged the inclusion of experience and interview as selection criteria.