Case: Syed Mohammad Vs. Union Of India

3. The process of selection, as prescribed, reads as followsprocess for promoteesThe selection shall be on the basis of performance in the written test, interview and five years Performance Appraisal Reports as per the division of marks givenWritten test70 Marks(B) Interview20 Marks(C) Performance AppraisalReport10 MarksTotal Marks100It is also a condition that "there shall be no minimum qualifying marks in the interview." Still further, it is stipulated that "promotions shall be made on the basis ofte before this Court did not participate in the interview. However, it is his stand that even without participating in the interview, in case he had secured the sufficient marks in the other two counts i.e. written test and performance appraisal, he is entitled to be promoted.5. The High Court took the view that the interview was one of the essential procedures for being included in the select list and, therefore, having not participated in the interview, thewas not liable to be selected and appointed. Thus aggrieved, the Bank and the candidate concerned are before this Court.

Court's reasoning:
7. We find it difficult to appreciate the contention in the background of the rules, which we have extracted above. The selection process is by way of a written test, interview and performance appraisal of the previous years. The total marks are 100. There is also a further significant stipulation that there are no minimum qualifying marks for the interview. Once no marks are prescribed as qualifying marks in the interview for the purpose of selection, whether a candidate participates in the interview or not is of no relevance, since even assuming, he had been granted zero marks in case he had otherwise obtained better marks in the written examination and the performance appraisal, he is eligible to be promoted since the selection is based onand since there is also no provision for disqualifying an incumbent in the interview and since there is performance appraisal.8. The principle governing selection based onis that once the candidates are found to possess the minimum required merit, the senior among them would get the promotion. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that theate had secured equal marks in the selection, though thehad not participated in the interview. But since thewas senior to thebased on the principle ofte had to be appointed and that alone was done by the Bank. We find nothing wrong in the procedure adopted in the selection in the peculiar factual and rule position of the Bank.