Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
18. Let us try to ana~se and find out the combined effect of the rsolutions dated 24.7.2001and21.2.2002. The resolution dated 24.7.2001 prescribed the following marks for the written examination and the interview: (a) The marks for written examination was 75 marks and the minimum qualifying marks was 50 marks for open category, 40 marks for backward classes and 35 marks for Scheduled Tribes; (b) The marks prescribed for interview was 25 marks and the minimum qualifying marks for interview was 16.67 marks for open category, 13.33 marks for Backward Classes, and 11.67 marks for Scheduled Tribes (by applying the ratio that was prescribed for written examination). The resolution dated 24. 7.2001 was amended on G …,.. 21.2.2002 and i~ was decided to have only minimum qualifying marks in the written test and not for the oral examination. This is evident from the subject placed for consideration on 21.2.2002 and the resolution on the subject. The subject for consideration was : "Minimum qualifying marks in the written examination". The resolution stated that the minimum qualifying marks was ~- ·- 50% for open category, 40% for Backward Classes and 35% for Scheduled Tribes in the written examination". It did not prescribe any minimum for the interviews. Nor was it understood as prescribing any minimum marks for the interview. That the B Administrative committee and Full Court intended and in face proceeded on the basis that there would be no minimum marks for the interview is evident from the fact that in regard to ~'"'" recruitment of 6 posts in 2001-2002, the minimum qualifying marks of 50%, 40% and 35% were applied only for the written c examination and no minimum qualifying marks were applied in respect of interviews. We are informed that for the 2001-2002 selections, the procedure adopted was that all candidates who passed the written examination by securing the minimum marks were called for interview and the interview marks were added D to the written examination marks for the purpose of preparing the merit list and for the purpose of selection. No minimum marks were applied for interview and no candidate was excluded on the ground of not securing any minimum marks in the interview. It is also not in dispute that even in the earlier selections (held prior to 2001-2002) the High Court had applied minimum marks for interviews. Therefore the only inference is that when the Administrative Committee resolved on 30.11.2004 that the minimum qualify[ng marks for QC/BC/SC/ST shall be as prescribed earlier what it meant and provided was that there will be minimum qualifying marks for the written examination only, that is 50% for OC, 40% for BC and 35% for ST. It may 4m however be mentioned that though minimum of 35% was prescribed only for ST candidates in regard to 2001-2002 selections, that percentage was adopted and applied in the written examination for both SC and ST candidates by th.e G resolution dated 30.11.2004.
19. The Administrative Committee of the High court (Chief Justice and five senior Judges) as also the Interview Committee consisting of five Judges (the Chief Justice and four other Judges) all along intended, understood and proceeded on the -f, K. MANJUSREE v. STATE OF AP. & ANR. [RV. RAVEENDRAN, J.] – )J basis with reference to the current selection that minimum A percentage was applicable only to written examination and not for interviews. This is evident from the manner in which interviews were conducted and merit list and selection list were prepared by the Interview Committee and approved by the Administrative Committee. This shows that the Interview Committee conducted 8 the interviews on 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 1ath, 20th, 24th and 31st of .,.._ March, 2006 on the understanding that there were no minimum marks for interviews, that the marks awarded by them in the interview will not by itself have the effect of excluding or ousting any candidate from being selected, and that marks awarded by c them in the interviews will merely be added to the written examination marks, for preparation of the merit list and selection. We are referring to this aspect, as the manner of conducting interviews and awarding marks in interviews, by the five members of the interviewing committee would have been markedly different if they had to proceed on the basis that there ..,.,,,.. were minimum marks to be secured in the interview for being considered for selection and that the marks awarded by them would have the effect of barring or ousting any candidate from being considered for selection. Thus, the entire process of E selection – from the stage of holding the examination, holding interviews and finalizing the list of candidates to be selected – was done by the Selection committee on the basis that there was no minimum marks for interview. To put it differently the game was played under the rule that there was no minimum marks for the interview.
20. Shri P. P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court submitted that the Resolution dated 21.2.2002 merely corrected a typographical error in the Resolution dated 24.7.2001, regarding minimum marks relating G to written examination, and the last portion of the Resolution .,.. dated 24.7.2001, relating to interviews, (that is, the portion reading "and the same ratio will apply for oral interview also") remained unaltered. According to him, when the Administrative Committee passed the Resolution dated 21.2.2002 in regard A to the earlier selection and again passed the resolution dated 30.11.2004 in regard to the current selection, to conduct the ~xamination with minimum qualifying marks as prescribed earlier, the intention was to have minimum marks both for written examination and the interview. We have already examined the B resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002 and held that the combined effect was to apply minimum percentage to only ;"'r' written ·examination and not for the interview. However, to test the correctness of his contention.we asked the learned counsel for the High Court to explain why the 2001-2002 selections were c done without applying minimum marks for interview. He was not in a position to explain why the 2001-2002 selections were made without applying any minimum marks for the interviews, if the resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002 had really provided that there should be a minimum marks for the interview. 0 The only explanation was that it was due to some oversight or mistake. The said explanation is neither satisfactory nor valid. Re : Question (ii)
21. The merit list and selection list prepared by the Interview E Committee and approved by the Administrative Committee, on the basis that there was no minimum marks for interview, however, contained one error. The inter se merit of the candidat~s were prepared with reference to a total of 125 marks, comprising 100 for the written examination and 25 for the interview. But the Administrative Committee had clearly resolved """T F on 30.11.2004 that evaluation of performance should be with ~ "' reference to a maximum marks of 75 for written examination and 25 for interview. The written examination was however, conducted with reference to a question paper set for a maximum of 100 marks. The interviews, of course, were held with G reference to maximum of 25 marks. Therefore, it was necessary to scale down the marks secured by the candidates in the written -…. examination (with reference to a maximum of 100 marks) proportionately to arrive at the marks with reference to a maximum of 75 marks so that the ratio of maximum marks in H written examination and interview would be 3:1. If the maximum … t —- K. MANJUSREE v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR. [RV. RAVEENDRAN, J.] -.-Y marks for the written examination was 100 and for ~he interview A was 25, then the ratio between the marks for written examination and interview would be 4: t, thereby altering the prescribed marks, after the selection process had begun. We are, therefore, of the view that the first list requested an arithmetical correction, that is, scaling down of the written examination marks to three- fourth of what was secured by them with reference to a maximum of 100 marks, so that the ratio of 3:1 could be maintained in respect of the marks for written examination and interviews. Re : Question (iii) c
22. When the Administrative Committee placed the merU lists and Selection List before Full Court, apparently objections were raised on two grounds. One related to the failure to provide the minimum of 50%, 40% and 35% marks for interviews, on _.., the interpretation of resolution dated 30.11.2004 read with earlier D resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002. The second -./• objection was that even though the Administrative Committee had resolved that the marks for written examination would be 75 and interview would be 25, at the time of tabulating the marks, the marks secured (out of 100 marks) in the written examination had been taken into account without scaling it down with reference to a maximum of 75 marks. The Full Court therefore, appointed a Sub-Committee of two Judges to examine the matter and prepare a fresh merit list and selection list. The Sub- Committee examined the matter and submitted a revised merit list by incorporating two changes. Firstly, while tabulating the F marks, it scaled down the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination with reference to a maximum of 100 marks, in proportion to a maximum of 75 marks so that the final marks were with reference to a base of 75 marks for written examination and 25 marks for interview as resolved on G 30.11.2004. Secondly, it applied the minimum percentage of 50%, 40% and 35% for OC, BC, SC/ST even in regard to interviews and consequently, eliminated those who secured less than the minimum in the interview from the process of selection. The final selection list was prepared with reference to the fresh H merit list prepared by incorporating the said two changes.
23. As far as the first chang~ is concerned, we have already held that scaling down in unexceptional as it is in consonance with the criteria decided by the Administrative Committee on 30.11.2004 before commencing the selection process.
24. But what could not have been done was the second change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the interview. The minimum marks for interview had never been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for selection c of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In regard to the present selection, the Administrative Committee merely adopted the previous procedure in vogue. The previous procedure as stated above was to apply minimum m arks only for written examination and. not for the oral examination. We have referred to the proper interpretation of the earlier resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002 and held that what was adopted on 30.11.2004 was only minimum marks for written examination and not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the e'ntire selection process (qonsisting of written examination and interview) was completed, E would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. We are fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to three of them – P. K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India – 1984 (2) sec 141 I Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union F of India – 1985 (3) SCC 721, and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa – 1987 (4) SCC 646.
25. In Ramachandra Iyer (supra), this Court was considering the validity of a selection process under the ICAR G Rules, 1977 which provided for minimum marks only in the written examinatipn and did not envisage obtaining minimum_ marks in the interview. But the Recruitment Board (ASRB) prescribed a further qualification of obtaining minimum marks in the interview also. This Court observed that the power to prescribe minimum marks in the interview should be expli.cit ,__ K. MANJUSREE v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN; J.] and cannot be read by implication for the obvious reason that A such deviation from the rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm. This Court held that as there was no power under the rules for the Selection Board to prescribed the additional qualification of securing minimum marks in the interview, the restriction was impermissible and had a direct B impact on the merit list because the merit list was to be prepared ~y~ according to the aggregate marks obtained by the candidates at written test and interview. This Court observed: "Once an additional qualification of obtaining minimum marks at the viva voce test is adhered to, a candidate who c may figure high up in the merit list was likely to be rejected on the ground that he has not obtaining minimum qualifying marks at viva voce test. To illustrate, a candidate who has obtained 400 marks at the written test and obtained 38 marks at the viva voce test, if considered on the aggregate D .,,_ of marks being 438 was likely to come within the zone of selection, but would be eliminated by the ASRB on the ground that he has not obtaining qualifying marks at viva voce test. This was impermissible and contrary to rules and the merit list prepared in contravention of rules cannot E be sustained."
26. In Umesh Chandra (supra), the scope of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970 came up for consideration. The rules provided that those who secured the prescribed minimum qualifying marks in the written examination will be called for viva F voce; and that the marks obtained in the viva voce shall be added to the marks obtained in the written test and the candidate's ranking shall depend on the aggregate of both 27 candidates were found eligible to appear for viva voce on the basis of their having secured the minimum prescribed marks in the written · G examination. The final list was therefore, expected to be .._ prepared by merely adding the viva voce marks to the written examination marks in regard to those 27 candidates. But the final list that was prepared contained some new names which were not in the list of 27 candidates who pas~ed the written –…. examination. Some names were omitted from the list of 27 candidates who passed the writte.n examination. It was found that the Selection Committee had moderated the written · examination marks by an addition of 2% for all the candidates, as a result of which some candidates who did not get through B. the written examination, became eligible for viva voce and came into the list. Secondly, the Selection Committee prescribed for i= selection, a minimum aggregate of 600 marks in the written examination and viva voce which was not provided in the Rules Jr• and that resulted in some of the names in the list of 27 being c omitted. This Court held neither was permissible. Dealing with the prescription of minimum 600 marks in the aggregate this Court observed : "There is no power reserved under Rule 18 of the Rules for the High Court to fix its own minimum marks in order to include candidates in the final list. It is stated in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition 4363 of 1985 that the Selection Committee has inherent power to select candidates who according to it are suitable for appointment by prescribing the minimum marks which a candidate should obtain in the aggregate in order to get into the Delhi Judicial Service …… But on going through the Rules, we are of the view that no fresh disqualification or bar may be created by the High Court or the Selection Committee merely on the basis of the marks obtained at the examination because clause (6) of the Appendix itself has laid down the minimum marks which a candidate should obtain in the written papers or in the aggregate in order to qualify himself to become a member of the Judicial Service. The prescription of the minimum of 600 marks in· the aggregate by the Selection Committee as an addition requirement which the candidate has to satisfy amounts to an amendment of what is prescribed by clause (6) of …. the Appendix …….. We are of the view that the Selection Committee has no power to prescribe the minimum marks which a candida'te should obtain in the aggregate different K. MANJUSREE v. STATE OF AP. & ANR. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] from the minimum already prescribed by the Rules in its Appendix .. We are, therefore, of the view that the exclusion of the names of certain candidates, who had not secured 600 marks in the aggregate including marks obtained at the viva voce test from the list prepared under Rule 18 of the Rules. is not legal." . ,,..
27. In Durgacharan Misra (supra), this Court was con~idering the selection under the Orissa Service Rules which did not prescribe any minimum qualifying marks to be secured in viva voce for selection of Munsifs. The rules merely required that after the viva voce test the State Public Service Commission c shall add the marks of the viva voce test to the marks in the written test. But the State Public Service Commission which was the selecting authority prescribed minimum qualifying marks for the viva voce test also. This Court held that the Commission had no power to prescribe the minimum standard D at viva voce test for determining the suitability of candidates for appointment of Munsifs.
28. In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve -. 2001 (10) SCC 51, this Gou.rt observed that 'the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced.' In this case the position is much more serious. Here, not only the rules of the game were changed, but they I# ~ were changed after the game has been played and the results F of the game were being awaited. That is unacceptable and impermissible.
29. The resolution dated 30.11.2004 merely adopted the –l procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore, extending G the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interJiews, in the selection process is impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules ~t· f.- regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do not prescribe any B procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection r- Committee want to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it ,'– should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the selection committee prescribed mJnimum marks only for c the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process, add an additional requirement that the candidates should also secure minimum marks in the interview. What we have found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview. -" T"
30. It was submitted that Administrative Committee and Interview Committee were only delegates of the Full Court and E the Full Court has the absolute power to determine or regulate the process of selection and it has also the power and authority to modify the decisions of the Administrative Committee. There can be no doubt about the proposition. The Administrative Committee being only a delegate of the Full Court, all decisions F and resolutions of Administrative Committee are placed before the Full Court for its approval and the Full Court may approve, modify or reverse any decision of the Administrative Committee. r- For example when the resolution dated 30.11.2004 was passed it was open to the Full Court, before the process of selection G began, to either specifically introduce a provision that there should be minimum marks for interviews, or prescribe a different ratio of marks instead of 75 for written examination and 25 for interview, or even delete the entire requirement of minimum marks even for the written examination. But that was not done. The Full Court allowed the Administrative Committee to ..___ K. MANJUSREE v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] determine the method and manner of selection and also allow~d A it to conduct the examination and interviews with reference to the method and manner determined by the Administrative Committee. Once the selection process was completed with reference to the criteria adopted by the Administrative Committee and the results were placed before it, the Full Court B did not find fault with the criteria decided by the Administrative Committee (as per resolution dated 30.11.2004) or the process of examinations and interviews conducted by the Administrative Committee and Interview Committee. If the Full Court had found that the procedure adopted in the examinations or interviews c was contrary to the procedure prescribed, the Full Court could have set aside the entire process of selection and directed the Administrative Committee to conduct a fresh selection. The resolution dated 30.11.2004 was approved. It did not find any irregularity in the examination conducted by the Administrative 0 Committee or the interviews held by the Selection Committee. The assessment of performance in the written test by the candidates was not disturbed. The assessment of performance in the interview by the Selection Committee was not disturbed. The Full Court however, introduced a new requirement as to minimum marks in the interview by an interpretative process E ·which is not warranted and which is at variance with the interpretation adopted while implementing the current selection process and the earlier selections. As the Full Court approved the resolution dated 30.11.2004 of the Administrative Committee . and also decided to retair:i the entire process of selection f consisting of written examination and interviews it could not have introduced a new requireme~t c;>f minimum marks in interviews, which had the effect of eliminating candidates, who would otherwise be eligible and suitable for selection. Therefore, we hold that the action of Full Court in revising the merit list by G adopting a minimum percentage of marks for interviews was impermissible.
31. The Division Bench of the High Court while considering the validity of the second list, has completely missed this aspect H A of the matter. It has proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the resolution dated 30.11.2004 of the 'Administrative Committee prescribed minimum marks for interviews. Consequently, it erroneously held that the Administrative Committee had .acted contrary to its own resolution dated B 30.11.2004 in not excluding candidates who had not secured the minimum marks in the interview and that the Full Court had merely corrected the wrong action of the Administrative · Committee by drawing up the revised merit list by applying marks for interview also. The decision of the Division Bench c therefore, cannot be sustained. ll CONCLUSION
32. We therefore,Jind that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.has to be set aside with a direction to 0 the AP High Court to redraw the merit list without applying any minimum marks for interview. The merit list will have to be ""'T prepared in regard to 83 candidates by adding the marks secured in written examination and the marks secured in the interview. Thereafter, separate lists have to be prepared for each E reservation category and then- the final selection of 1 O candidates will have to be made. The scaling down of the written examination marks with reference to 75 instead of 100 is however, proper.
33. In view of our said decision, WP(C) No.51/2007 and F WP(C) No.97/200'7 do not survive for consideration. As a …:;;; candidate is available under the category of SC (Woman) and she will be selected, the question of considering whether that post should be transferred to SC (General) does not arise.
34. The SLP by Thirumala Devi is not maintained. She G was not a selected candidate, either in the first list or second list. She did not challenged the process of selection by filing a wr-it petition. She was not a party to the writ petitions. She is in no way aggrieved as she will not be selected, by adopting either method. There is also a delay of 190 days. Therefore, the said H SLP is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and on .the K. MANJUSREE v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] ground it is not maintainable. -'>I
35. In view of the above, we dispose of the matter as follows: , (i) The application for impleadment (IAs 2, 3, 4 & 5 filed in SLP(C) No.18330/2006) are allowed. (ii) The civil appeal filed by K. Manjusree is allowed and the judg01ent of the High Court is set aside. The High Court is 1"' directed to prepare a fresh merit list in regard to 83 candidates with reference to their marks in written test and interview without applying any minimum marks for interviews and thereafter c finalise the selections in accordance with law. (iii) The appointments of five candidates in pursuance of our interim order need not be disturbed. The said five candidates will find a place in the selection list even when it is redone, though their ranks/reservation category may vary. Their rank and seniority· will depend upon the fresh selection list of ten candidates to be drawn and not on the appointment made in pursuance of the interim order. (iv) WP(C) No.51/2007 and WP(C) No.97/2007 are dismissed. (v) The application for permission to file SLP by Thirumala Devi is rejected. As a consequence SLP (CC) No. 7188-79/ 2007 is rejected. R.P. Matters disposed of.