THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.22319 OF 2011 Date:08.09.2011 Between: The Chief Personnel Officer, Zonal Office, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad and others .. Petitioners And V.Ravi Kumar and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.22319 OF 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The writ petition is filed against the order dated 24.02.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.865 of 2010. The said O.A. was filed by respondents 1 to 5 herein (hereafter called, the applicants) praying to set aside the Memorandum/Order dated 02.07.2010 of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer (SDPO) – the fourth petitioner herein (hereafter called, the fourth respondent) empanelling respondents 6 to 29 for being promoted to the post of Technician-III (C&W) in Pay Band of Rs.5,200/- - 20,200/- against 25% LDCE quota. The learned Tribunal quashed the panel drawn by the fourth respondent and issued a direction to prepare a panel on the basis of a written test. The brief fact of the matter is as follows. The posts of Technicians-III (C&W) in Mechanical Department of South Central Railway are selection posts. The Kalasi Helpers are eligible to be considered for selection. The applicants are eligible for promotion as Technicians-III. The SDPO issued a notification dated 15.06.2009 proposing to hold selection for forming a panel and called volunteers to be considered in the selection. As per the said notification, the eligible Kalasi Helpers must have passed Matriculation or its equivalent or passed X Class in 10+2 system and must have completed three years regular services in Group ‘D’ (C&W) Mechanical Department. The method of selection is by subjecting the eligible employees to the selection comprising of written test only. The applicants volunteered and appeared in the written examination. The candidates who obtained 60% marks in the written examination were considered as eligible for empanelment. After announcement of the result of the written test, the applicants who obtained 60% marks, figured in the list of 45 candidates published on 21.05.2010 by SDPO. But when the recommendation for empanelment was made by Memorandum dated 02.07.2010, the applicants were excluded from the panel. They alleged that instead of making recommendation for empanelment based on the marks obtained in the written test only, all the qualified candidates were subjected to selection based on record, which is arbitrary and illegal. The O.A. was opposed by the official respondents while admitting that all the qualified employees in written test were subjected to scrutiny of record of service by the Selection Committee to assess the aggregate and that the applicants acquired qualifying marks of 60% and above in aggregate, it was alleged that their position is beyond 24. Hence they were not considered for empanelment. The learned Tribunal having noticed the method of selection as notified on 15.06.2009 came to the conclusion that the official respondents were not justified in preparing the panel by taking the record of service. The learned Tribunal also considered the Serial Circular No.67/98 dated 20.03.1998, Serial Circular No.95/09 and RBE No.113/09 issued on 30.06.2009 and 19.06.2009 and recorded a finding that when the notification required the selection to be made on the basis of written test only, the vivo voce or any selection is excluded and the record of service cannot be taken into consideration. The impugned panel was accordingly quashed. The Senior Standing Counsel for Railways would submit that the selection notified on 15.06.2009 has gone by the Rules and Circulars issued by the Railway Board from time to time and, therefore, even if the notification does not contemplate vivo voce/selection based on record of service, the panel cannot be said to be vitiated. In the absence of any mention about the consideration of the qualified candidates based on the record of service, it has to be presumed that the Rules would apply and when the panel was prepared by SDPO following the Circulars, the Tribunal erred in quashing the panel. We have perused the Serial Circular Nos.67/98 and 95/09. These were issued a decade back. In spite of the same, when the SDPO issued notification dated 15.06.2009, in two places it is categorically mentioned that, “the selection will consist of written test only” and that “eligible employees will be subjected to a selection comprising of written test only”. The use of the term “only after written test” would indicate that insofar as the preparation of panel of Kalasi Helpers for promotion to Technicians-III against 25% of LDCE quota, the competent authority decided to select the eligible candidates based on the written test only. Having taken such a decision after completion of the written test, the respondents could not have again subjected the candidates to qualify to the written test for selection based on the record of service. As directed by us, the learned Standing Counsel for Railways has placed before us the proceedings of the Selection Committee as well as the General Merit List of all the 78 candidates who appeared in the selection. In the selection list, candidates at Serial Nos.16, 20, 22 to 24 did not even obtain the minimum qualifying marks of 60%. Further, those candidates who obtained highest marks in the written test could not obtain high ranking because of the selection based on record of service. This is certainly arbitrary and cannot be countenanced by the Court. The SDPO set the standards for selection and he cannot himself go back and adopt a different method of selection. It is held by the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India[1], “an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them.” In K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh[2], the Supreme Court considered the question whether the procedure adopted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in preparing a select list for appointment to the post of District Judges is legal and valid. When the selections were held, the minimum marks for interview were not prescribed. Such minimum marks were introduced after the selection process was completed. Finding fault with this, the Supreme Court observed as under. The minimum marks for interview had never been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for selection 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 marks only for written examination and not for the oral examination. We have referred to the proper interpretation of the earlier resolutions dated 24.07.2001 and 21.02.2002 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 entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. (emphasis supplied) In this case, the notification inviting applications from Kalasi Helpers to appear in the written test for empanelment to the post of Technicians – III does not specifically prescribe or stipulate any assessment of record or viva voce. The selection based on record of service instead of written test as notified certainly violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned Tribunal, therefore, was correct in quashing the panel impugned before them. The writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ____________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) 08.09.2011 KH [1] AIR 1979 SC 1628 [2] AIR 2008 SC 1470 : (2008) 3 SCC 512