The petitioner challenged his non-appointment as Accountant at IIM Kozhikode, arguing arbitrary fixation of cut-off marks after evaluation. The Court held that per the notification terms and Yogesh Yadav precedent, the petitioner was put on notice, dismissing the petition.
Petitioner cannot be granted the reliefs sought in this Writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/25TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 10854 of 2013 (F)
PETITIONER :
JAYAKRISHNAN.R., S/O. P. RAMAN MOOSAD, 'SHYAM, VIKAS NAGAR, KODAMOLIKKUNNU ROAD, P.O.NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE-673 016.
BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
RESPONDENT(S):
1. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT KOZHIKODE, IIM KOZHIKODE CAMPUS.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 570.
2. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT KOZHIKODE,
IIM KOZHIKODE CAMPUS.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 570.
3. SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (GA), INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT KOZHIKODE,
IIM KOZHIKODE CAMPUS.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 570.
4. SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE POST OF ACCOUNTANT IN INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
5. BOARD OF GOVERNORS, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT KOZHIKODE,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT KOZHIKODE, IIM KOZHIKODE CAMPUS.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 570.
2/-
-2-
WP(C).NO.10854/2013
6. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES, NEW DELHI.
R1 TO R5 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R6 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 10854 of 2013 (F)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXT.P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10-10-2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7-12-2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED EVALUATION SHEET OF CANDIDATES. |
| EXT.P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE HELD ON 4-1-2013 FOR SECTION TO THE POST OF ACCOUNTANT. |
| EXT.P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT NO.R-01/2013 DATED 11/4/2013. |
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXT.R1(A) | COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTIFICATION BEARING ADVERTISEMENT NO.R-03/2012 DATED 5/10/2012 |
|---|---|
| EXT.R1(B) | COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 5/10/2012 FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF ACCOUNTANT VIDE ADVERTISEMENT NO.R-02/2012 DATED 28/5/2012 |
| ET.R1(C) | COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 4/1/2013 FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF ACCOUNTANT VIDE ADVERTISEMENT NO.R-03/2012 DATED 5/10/2012 |
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
P.V.ASHA, J.
W.P(C) No.10854 of 2013-F
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who secured 71 marks out of a total of 125 in the examination for selection for appointment as Accountant in the Indian Institute of Management, challenges the fixation of cut off marks at 81.25 at a stage when the evaluation of all the candidates in the written test and interview was over, as a result of which the petitioner is not given appointment, though he secured the highest marks.
W.P(C) No.10854 of 2013-F 2
and 10 out of 25 in the interview. From Ext.P4 it can be seen that, the selection committee for the post of Accountant after evaluation of the candidates fixed 65%, ie. 81.25, as cut off marks for qualifying in the written test and interview together. As none of the 6 candidates who appeared for written test and interview scored 81.25 marks, the committee did not find any of them suitable.
W.P(C) No.10854 of 2013-F 3
were directed to watch the website of IIM, as can be seen from Ext.P1 notification itself. The respondents have produced Ext.R1 (a) advertisement inviting applications for the post of Accountant as well as for other posts. Towards the end of this notification the general instructions to the candidates are given. Clauses 10 and 11 read as follows:
“10. Mere fulfilling of the minimum qualifications and experience prescribed will not make a candidate eligible to be called for Test/Interview. Short listed candidates alone will be called for Test/Interview.
Therefore, according to the respondents, there was no illegality in fixing the cut off marks and they were very well within their powers to fix the cut off marks and to take a decision not to select any candidate when it was found that none of them secured the requisite marks they fixed and the petitioner does not have any right to challenge the same in order to claim appointment, when he did not choose to challenge the notification before he subjected himself to the process of selection.
W.P(C) No.10854 of 2013-F 4
appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.Gopinath, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
“25. The term “cut-off marks” in academic and judicial vocabulary has several meanings. When rejecting a person's request for selection on the ground that his marks are less than the marks secured by the last andidate who was selected, by describing the marks secured by the last candidate as “cut-off marks”. The words “cut-off marks” are also used while notifying a body of applicants who form part of a merit list or the general public, the marks secured by the
W.P(C) No.10854 of 2013-F 5
last selected candidate so that they can know that persons with lesser merit/marks had not been selected or have no chance of being selected. “Cut-off marks” are also used to refer to the minimum marks (either eligibility marks or qualifying marks) required for admission to a course.”
According to the learned counsel, it is settled law that the minimum marks for selection should be predetermined and it cannot be fixed during the process of selection. In this case, only 2 vacancies were notified and 6 candidates were found eligible for the interview. Therefore, the fixation of cut off marks after the interview, according to the petitioner, was made for denying opportunity to him, only because the respondents could not get the candidate of their choice within the zone of consideration for appointment.
W.P(C) No.10854 of 2013-F 6
judgment in Yogesh Yadav v. Union of India [AIR 2013 SC 3372], in which the Apex Court was dealing with a case where candidates for appointment to the post of Deputy Director (Law) belonging to OBC were totally excluded by fixing a cut off marks. Referring to the mode of selection and the advertisement inviting applications for the same, the exclusion of candidates for want of the cut off marks was upheld, though it was fixed after the test. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, the mode of selection has been extracted from the advertisement which reads as follows:
“5. xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx
“ Mode of Selection
All the applications received by the due date will be screened with reference to the minimum qualification criteria. From amongst the eligible candidates, suitable candidates will be short listed through a transparent mechanism and the short listed candidates will be called for interview before final selection. Mere fulfilling of minimum qualifications by itself would not entitle any applicant for being called for interview.”
It is the contention of Sri P.Gopinath that they are on a better footing because of clauses 10 and 11 of Ext.R1(a), which provided that fullfilment of minimum qualification and experience will not make a candidate eligible to be qualified for the post. Clause 11 specifically indicated the power of the selection committee to fix the minimum cut off marks at any
W.P(C) No.10854 of 2013-F 7
stage. Therefore, there was sufficient warning to the candidates that the selection and appointment would be subject to the fixation of minimum cut off marks at any stage. According to the respondents, the petitioner should have challenged the notification itself where there was specific instruction regarding the fixation of minimum marks.
W.P(C) No.10854 of 2013-F 8
However, it is pointed out that the previous selection was also conducted in the same manner in which no candidate of their choice was available and it was in continuation of that selection that the present selection was made. Therefore, the contention of petitioner regarding malice or malafides cannot be accepted. In the above circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the decision taken in Ext.P4 and the petitioner cannot be granted any reliefs sought for in this Writ petition.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)
rtr/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the fixation of cut-off marks after the candidate evaluation violates the principle of natural justice or amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.
Whether the selection committee's power to fix minimum cut-off marks as per the notification allows it to disqualify all candidates after evaluation.
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the non-appointment of the petitioner despite securing the highest marks should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.Manjusree Vs State of Andhra PradeshReferred¶54
K.Manjusree Vs . State of Andhra Pradesh [(2008)3 SCC 512] · Who else cites this
Thej Prakash Pathak V Rajasthan High CourtReferred¶54
Thej Prakash Pathak V Rajasthan High Court [2013(2) KLT 83(SC)]
P.V.Indiresan (2) v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶54
P.V.Indiresan (2) v. Union of India [(2011) 8 SCC 441] · Who else cites this
Parmender Kumar v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶59
Parmender Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2012) 1 SCC 177] · Who else cites this
Durgacharan Mishra V State of Orissa & othersRelied on¶59
Durgacharan Mishra V State of Orissa & others [(1987)4 SCC 646:1987 KHC 1120] · Who else cites this
Yogesh Yadav v. Union of IndiaDistinguished¶60
Yogesh Yadav v. Union of India [AIR 2013 SC 3372] · Who else cites this
JAYAKRISHNAN.R.
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT KOZHIKODE
UNION OF INDIA
P.V.ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
