Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 4th July, 2024
SRINIVASA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shiv Nath, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Deora and Mr. Mohan Singh, Advocates.
& ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Madan Gera, Advocate
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “(i) writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to quash and set aside the impugned final result and consider the selection/appointing of the petitioner against the notification CIN:U7499L2002 PLC 8123 Ref. No. AIC/Rect/MT (30) 2023-2024 dated 24.06.2023.
(ii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to redraw the final result list and to prepare a fresh selection list on the basis of consolidated marks in written and interview including the candidature of the Petitioner.
(iii) And or to pass such other and further order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for the fact and circumstances of the case.”
2. Factual matrix to the extent necessary is that Respondent No.1/Agriculture Insurance Company of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’) initiated a recruitment process vide Recruitment Notice dated 24.06.2023 for filling 30 vacancies of Management Trainees in the discipline of Rural Management, both under the Unreserved and Reserved categories. The selection process was a two-tier process based on an Online Examination carrying 150 marks followed by interview for which the maximum marks were 50, as stipulated in the Recruitment Notice. Minimum qualifying marks in the Online Examination were 60% for General/OBC and EWS categories and 55% for SC/ST candidates. It was further stipulated in the Recruitment Notice that the Company reserved the right to fix eligibility standards in order to restrict/enhance the number of candidates to be called for interview commensurate to the number of vacancies. It was also stipulated that the Company reserved the right to fix the minimum marks to qualify in the interview.
3. As per the case of the Petitioner set out in the petition, Petitioner applied for the post of Management Trainee (Rural Management) under EWS category on 07.07.2023. The online written examination was held on 02.09.2023 at different Regional Centres in India and on 26.10.2023, list of successful candidates shortlisted for interview was published, in which Petitioner was at 4th Rank. Call letter was issued to the Petitioner for interview, scheduled on 20.11.2023. Final result of the selected candidates was published on 07.12.2023, wherein the name of the Petitioner did not figure.
4. Petitioner sought information through online portal for consolidated marks as also cut-off marks in each category. As per information supplied, Petitioner had secured 124 marks in the written examination and 24.75 marks in the interview and his aggregate was 148.75 marks out of 200, which was above the cut-off marks of 147.25 in the EWS category. Petitioner sent an application/representation to consider his case for selection but the response received was not favourable and Petitioner has thus approached this Court seeking quashing of the final result as well as for a direction to the Respondents to re-draw the final result list on the basis of consolidated marks and appoint him.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that action of the Respondents in not selecting the Petitioner to the post of Management Trainee (Rural Management) is wholly illegal and arbitrary. The consolidated marks of the Petitioner are above the cut-off marks in the EWS category and as learnt later, he has not been selected as he failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in the interview i.e. 25 marks out of 50. The argument is that the Recruitment Notice detailed the selection procedure in paragraph 7(C) providing that selection would be based on the pre-fixed criteria of performance in the online examination and interview and the final merit list shall be prepared in descending order of the consolidated marks secured by the candidates. Respondents had not mentioned in the Recruitment Notice that a candidate would have to secure 50% minimum qualifying marks in the interview and therefore, after commencement of the selection process, rules of the game cannot be changed. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and Others v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Others, (2001) 10 SCC 51, wherein the Supreme Court observed that rules of the game, meaning thereby, criteria for selection cannot be altered by the concerned authorities in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. For the same proposition, reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2008) 3 SCC 512.
6. It is further urged that Petitioner is a meritorious candidate belonging to the weaker section of the society and it would be a travesty of justice if he is not offered appointment to the post in question despite having a good score of 124 marks, which is admittedly above the cut-off in the EWS category.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondents, relying on the counter affidavit, does not dispute that Petitioner qualified the online examination and secured aggregate 124 marks out of total 200 and his total marks i.e. 148.75 were above the cut-off marks i.e. 147.25 in the EWS category. It is, however, urged that Petitioner was not offered appointment as he failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks in the interview, which were required to be 25 out of 50 marks. It is argued that rules of the game have not been changed by the Company, contrary to the allegations of the Petitioner. The selection procedure was elaborately detailed in the Recruitment Notice dated 24.06.2023. It was stipulated that the online examination would carry a total of 150 marks while the interview was for 50 marks. With respect to the online written examination, it was provided that the minimum qualifying marks would be 60% for General/OBC and EWS categories and 55% for SC/ST Candidates. With respect to the interview marks, it was provided that the maximum marks would be 50 and the Company reserved the right to fix minimum marks to qualify in the interview. Petitioner was well aware of this stipulation in the Recruitment Notice and is estopped from challenging the selection criteria, having participated in the same, without any objection. Only because Petitioner has been unsuccessful, he cannot challenge the selection process as per the settled law. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal and Others v. State of J&K and Others, (1995) 3 SCC 486; Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 576; and Ramesh Chandra Shah and Others v. Anil Joshi and Others, (2013) 11 SCC 309.
8. It is further argued that the judgments relied upon by the Petitioner are distinguishable on facts and have no application to the present case. In
9. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their rival contentions.
10. Indisputably, Recruitment Notice dated 24.06.2023 was published by the Company for recruitment of 30 Management Trainees in the discipline of Rural Management, both in the Reserved and Unreserved categories. The selection process was a two-tier process with an Online Examination, for which 150 marks were allocated and an interview of 50 marks. The Online Examination was both objective and descriptive and it was stipulated in the notice that the minimum qualifying marks would be 60% for General/OBC and EWS categories and 55% for SC/ST candidates. Insofar as the interview was concerned, it was provided in the notice that candidates who qualified in the Online Examination will be ranked in the order of merit and will be called for interview to be conducted by the Company. It was further stipulated that the Company reserved the right to fix the eligibility standards in order to restrict/enhance the candidates to be called for interview, commensurate to the number of vacancies. The number of candidates to be called were to be three times the number of vacancies to be filled, subject to availability of successful candidates in the Online Examination. Significantly, it was also provided that ‘Maximum interview marks were 50. Company reserves the right to fix the minimum marks to qualify in the interview’. Relevant part of the Recruitment Notice is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl. Name of Type of test Maximum No. of Medium Duration │ │ No. Test Marks Questions of Exam │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. Test of Objective 10 10 Eng/Hindi │ │ Reasoning │ │ 2. Test of Objective 10 10 English │ │ English │ │ Language │ │ 3. Test of Objective 10 10 Eng/Hindi Minutes │ │ General │ │ Awareness │ │ 4. Test of Objective 10 10 Eng/Hindi │ │ Quantitative │ │ aptitude │ │ 5. Professional Objective 100 50 Eng/Hindi 70 │ │ Knowledge Minutes │ │ Test │ │ 6. Descriptive Descriptive 10 1 English 15 │ │ English only Minutes │ │ Test-Essay │ │ Note: │ │ • Negative Marks for Wrong Answers: There will be negative marks for │ │ wrong answer, 1/4th of the allotted marks (in objective tests) will be │ │ deducted for each wrong answer. If a question is left blank i.e. no answer │ │ is marked by the candidate, there will be no penalty for that question. │ │ • Candidates will have to appear for the online examination at their own │ │ expenses. │ │ • The Company reserves the right to relax/enhance the requirement of │ │ minimum qualifying marks in Online examination, in order to enhance / │ │ restrict the number of candidates to be called for interview, based on │ │ performance in the Online examination and to commensurate with the │ │ number of vacancies. │ │ • The Company also reserves the right to modify the structure of the │ │ examination which will be intimated through its website. The applicants │ │ are advised to visit the Company's website www.aicofindia.com regularly │ │ for any update on the recruitment process. No separate individual │ │ intimation shall be given. │ │ Pre-exam training (ONLINE) for SC/ST/OBC- Non-creamv/PwBD │ │ candidates : │ │ online. Candidates are required to refer to Career Section of AIC website │ │ regularly for details. Candidates who have opted for training will also be │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
23. It is settled proposition of law that once an order has been passed, it is complied with, accepted by the other party and derived the benefit out of it, he cannot challenge it on any ground. (Vide Maharashtra SRTC v. Balwant Regular Motor Service [AIR 1969 SC 329].) In R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir [(1992) 4 SCC 683] this Court has observed as under: (R.N. Gosain case [(1992) 4 SCC 683], SCC pp. 687-88, para 10) ‘10. Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that ‘a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage’.’
25. The Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v. Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd. [(2013) 5 SCC 470: (2013) 3 SCC (Civ) 153], made an observation that a party cannot be permitted to “blow hot and cold”, “fast and loose” or “approbate and reprobate”. Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance or an order, is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance or order. This rule is applied to do equity, however, it must not be applied in a manner as to violate the principles of right and good conscience.
26. It is evident that the doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel, the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate is inherent in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one among the species of estoppel in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule of equity. By this law, a person may be precluded, by way of his actions, or conduct, or silence when he has to speak, from asserting a right which he would have otherwise had.”
23. The aforesaid principle of law applies to the present case. It is not open to the candidate to contend to the contrary so that he can have the best of both sets of rules. Not only is there a difference in the mode of selection, but also in the constitution of recruiting authority as well. It is pertinent to note, that under the 2015 Rules, there is no such procedure for preparing a waiting-list, as the Respondents seek to contend.”
13. Learned counsel for the Respondents is correct in his submission that the facts of the case before the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. (supra), are completely distinguishable from the present case and therefore, the judgment will have no application. The said case related to an advertisement inviting applications for the posts of drivers and conductors. Writ petitioners had applied for the post of drivers and were called for driving test after they were found possessing the requisite qualifications and experience. After clearing the driving test, writ petitioners were called for a personal interview but were not offered appointment. The grievance was that Selection Committee conducting the interview had arbitrarily allocated 25% marks for the personal interview in such a manner that marks obtained in the driving test lost significance. Questions were also raised on the applicability of circular dated 24.06.1996, which according to the Appellant/Corporation was only a clarification. The writ petitioners asserted that it was the circular dated 04.04.1995, which should govern the selection and consequently, 87½% marks should have been assigned for written/trade test and 12½% for personal interview. The Supreme Court observed that procedure for recruitment of drivers was separate from other categories and circular dated 24.06.1996 will have no relevance to the selection in question and circular dated 04.04.1995 would apply only in cases where selection had to be finalized on the basis of written examination and interview. There being no written examination for drivers, selection process has to be on the basis of earlier circulars. These aspects were left to lie in a nebulous state leaving much for assumptions on either side. The Corporation should have adverted to these aspects at the appropriate stage before setting the selection process in motion and the rules of the game cannot be changed in the midst of the selection process. Insofar as the judgment in K. Manjusree (supra) is concerned, reliance by the Petitioner is equally misconceived, as in the said case, minimum qualifying marks for interview were introduced after the process of written test and interview was concluded and moreover, in Karunesh Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that the principle that rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection process has commenced will be applicable to the qualifications or eligibility conditions. Clearly, in the present case, Respondents had notified that the Company reserved the right to fix the minimum qualifying marks for the interview and this Court is, therefore, unable to agree with the Petitioner even on a factual note that fixing of the minimum qualifying marks for the interview was a change in the rules of the game, post the commencement of the selection process.
14. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.