MADHUKAR BAKRU PINGAL

SHRI RAJENDRA D. GAIKWAD AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 13, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY

AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)

Se1vice Law

Selection--Criteiia,-50% marks for WTitten examination and 50% for C viva-vocC--Challenge by unsuccessful candidate-T1ibunal holding allocation of 50% marks for vivavoce arbitraiy-Direction to set aside appointment of selected candidate and appointment of unsuccessful candidate-Held not justified-Supreme Court-Direction to conduct selection on the basis of lower ma1ks in viva-voce and higher marks in w1itten examination.

The appellant was selected and appointed as Police Patil. The selection criteria prescribed 50% marks for written examination and 50% for viva-voce examination. Respondent-I, an unsuccessful candidate, filed

an application before the Tribunal which held that allocation of 50% marks in vivavoce was arbitrary. Further the Tribunal set aside the E appointment of appellant and directed appointment of Respondent- 1.

In appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant that the appropriate course for the Tribunal was to direct the authorities to select candidates by prescribing lesser marks for viva voce and higher marks for written examination.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD

1. The direction issued by the Tribunal to appoint the contesting respondent-I as Police Patil is set aside. Instead, the official respondents are directed to conduct written examination and viva-voce test G allocating 85% and 15% of marks respectively and consider the cases of all those candidates who appeared at the initial examination and make selection according to rules. Under the interim direction, the appellant is continuing in service and would continue till a candidate is duly selected and appointed. [628-H, 629-A, 628-G] H

SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7081 of

1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.94 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay in 0.A. No. 987 of 1993.

A. M. Khanwilkar for the Appellant

S.V. Deshpande for the Respondents

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

On July 27, 1992 applications were invited to fill up the post of Police Patil in the village Ambe, Dindori Taluk of Nasik District. Five persons had applied for the recruitment. The appellant was selected and was appointed as the Police Patil. On challenge being made by the respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal, the Tribunal set aside the appointment order of D the appellant. The Tribunal observed that 50% of marks were reserved for written examination and 50% marks were for viva-voce and held that the prescription of 50% of marks for viva-voce is arbitrary as per the law laid down by this Court. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside e appointment of the appellant and directed to appoint the respondent. Thus, this appeal by £ special leave.

Mr. Khanwilkar, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that even assuming .that prescription of 50% of marks for vivavoce is invalid the appropriate course would have been that a direction ws given to the

 F respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to prescribe lesser marks for viva-voce and higher marks for written eXamination and to direct conducting examinations of the candidates who had applied for afresh and. considering the cases of the candidates according to law. We find force in the contentioµ. The Tribunal, instead, has given direction to appoint Respondent No. 1 who was not selected by the appointing authority. Under the interim direction, the G appellant is continuing in service and would continue till a candidate is duly

selected and appointed.

In these circumstances, we set aside the direction issued by the Tribunal to appoint the contesting respondent No. 1 as Police Patil. Instead H the officil respondents are directed to conduct written examination and

M.B. PINGAL v. R.D. GAIKWAD 629

viva-voce test allocating 85% and 15% of marks respectively and consider A the cases of all those candidates who appeared at the initial examination and make selection according to rules.

The appeal is accordingly allowed'. No costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal allowed. B