1 upk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1717 OF 2010 ... Rahul Bharatkumar Bhatt and ors. ...Petitioner v/s Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. & ors..Respondents ... Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar i/b Mr.Pramod Kathane for the Petitioner. Ms.A.R.S.Baxi for Respondent No.1. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & A.R.JOSHI, JJ DATED: 4th March, 2010 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the Administrative Circular No.152 dated 16-6-2009. It appears that the 2 Administrative Circular No.143 was issued on 16-2-2009. By that Circular the method of filling in the vacancy in the post of Executive Engineer, Dy.Executive Engineer and Asst.Engineer in Transmission and Civil Cadres was revised. Paragraph 4 of that Circular is relevant for our purpose. It reads as under: 4.The internal notification shall be for the engineers working in MSETCL only. The selection against internal notification shall be on the basis of written test and Personal Interview where academic qualifications, performance appraisal (ACRs) and performance in Personal Interview shall be considered. The guidelines for weightage to the Written Test and Personal Interview shall be decided subsequently.(emphasis supplied) 2. Thus it was made clear by Administrative Circular No.143 that selection will be on the basis of the written test and 3 Personal Interview. It was also made clear that so far as personal interview is concerned, academic qualifications will be considered, performance appraisal will be considered and performance in personal interview will be considered. How the marks are to be apportioned was to be decided subsequently and therefore it appears that Administrative Circular No.152 was issued. By that Circular it was clarified that written test which has been held for 100 marks will now be converted into 60 marks and thus out of 100 marks for selection, 60 marks will be allotted for written test. Out of remaining 40 marks 10 marks will be allotted for the Post-graduate qualification for Engineer, 15 marks for Annual Confidential Reports/Performance Apprisal for preceding 3 years on 5 point scale. 5 marks for experience. It was clarified that these marks 4 can be claimed by only those who have worked for more than 15 years in the post of Executive Engineer and more than 10 years in the post of Deputy Executive Engineer and 10 marks for Personal Interview. Relevant portion of Administrative Circular No. 152 reads as under:- 1. Written Test (100 marks will be converted into 60 marks) 60 Marks 2.Allocation of remaining marks shall be as under (i)Post-graduation qualification engineering 10 marks (ii)Annual Confidential Reports/ Performance Apprisal for preceding 15 marks 3 years on 5 point scale.(Outstanding -5, Very Good-4, Good-3, Average-2) (iii)Experience 05 marks (Candidate who have applied for the post of EE having more than 15 years experience and in case of candidate who has applied for the post of Dy.EE having more than 10 years,experience shall only be eligible to score these marks.) (iv) Personal Interview 10 marks Total marks for assessment 100 marks 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per the earlier 5 Circular No.143, 40 marks were allotted to personal interview, but now for Post-graduate qualification in Engineering 10 marks are being allotted. According to the learned Counsel allotment of 10 marks out of 40 marks for post-graduate qualification in Engineering is illegal. Because according to the learned Counsel that is not what is contemplated by Administrative Circular No. 143. The learned Counsel submits that changing of norms after holding written examination is invalid. He further submits that in the advertisement that was published, pursuant to which written examination was held, it was not stated that any marks will be allotted for the post-graduate qualification in Engineering and therefore, according to the learned Counsel after written test is completed, now Rules cannot be changed. 6 4. In our opinion, the submission of the learned Counsel has no substance. Perusal of the Administrative Circular No.143 shows that it was made clear that the selection will be on the basis of the performance at the written examination and personal interview. That personal interview consists of considering the academic qualification, performance apprisal and performance in personal interview. It was also made clear that the guidelines for weightage to the written test and personal Interview will be decided subsequently. The advertisement dated 2-7-2009 was issued pursuant to the Circulat No.143. Selection criteria mentioned in that advertisement reads as under: The selection against internal notification shall be on the basis of written test and Personal Interview where academic qualifications, performance appraisal (ACRs) and performance in Personal 7 Interview shall be considered. 5. It, thus, becomes clear that the advertisement was completely in consonance with the Administrative Circular No.143. What has now been done by Circular No.152 is that what was stated in Clause 4 of Circular No. 143 is being specified. After allotting 60 marks for the written test, remaining 40 marks could not have been allotted to personal interview. Those marks have now been divided. 10 marks are allotted for better education qualification i.e. post-graduate and 20 marks are allotted for Annual Confidential Reports and for experience. In our opinion, Administrative Circular No.143 itself contemplates higher qualification to be one of the criteria for selection, and therefore, in our opinion, nothing new is being done by Administrative Circular No.152. In the advertisement by clause (5), which we 8 have quoted above, also it was made clear that so far as personal interview is concerned, academic qualification will be taken into consideration, and therefore, in our opinion, allocation of 10 marks separately for better education qualification can neither be said to be arbitrary or high handed. This is an attempt made by the employer for getting better qualified candidate for appointment. We do not find any substance in the petition. It is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.R.JOSHI, J.)