RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT AND OTHERS VS.

SUBHASH BALODA AND

OTHERS

AIR 2013 SC 139

Legal Crystal Citation

Court SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Decided On FEB-11-2013

Judge G.S. SINGHVI & H.L. GOKHALE

Appellant RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT AND OTHERS

Respondent SUBHASH BALODA AND OTHERS

PART –1

FACTS OF THE CASE

This appeal arises on the background of following facts.

Sometime in the year 2009, Appellant No. 3 issued an advertisement bearing No.
04/2009, inviting applications for various posts such as those of Research
Assistants, Junior Parliamentary Reporters, Stenographers, Translators, Security
Assistants Grade-II, and Junior Clerks. In the present matter we are concerned with
the posts of Security Assistants Grade-II. In this advertisement, 37 vacancies were
1

advertised in the cadre of Security Assistants Grade-II, in the Lok Sabha Secretariat,
Page

and 19 vacancies in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat.

The scheme of the examination for these posts was also incorporated in the
advertisement. The examination for the recruitment of Security Assistants Grade-II
was to be conducted in four stages.

They were as follows:-

(1) Preliminary Examination,

(2) Physical Measurement and Field Tests,

(3) Descriptive Type Written Papers,

(4) Personal Interview

The candidates were expected to be graduates in any discipline, provided they met
the requisite physical requirements as per the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Rules.
As per the approved scheme of the examination, the recruitment of the candidates
depended on their performance in each of the four stages. Each test was an
elimination round for the subsequent test.

The candidates were required to attain the prescribed standards, and to qualify in
each of the stages. However, the marks secured by them in the third and fourth
stage, viz. descriptive type written paper and personal interview, were to be
considered for determining the inter-se seniority in the merit order for selection. 5. (i)
The advertisement specified as ‘desirable’, certain additional qualifications

Out of the candidates who wrote the descriptive type written paper, 68 candidates
secured the minimum qualifying marks, and were called for the personal interview of
25 marks.It is the case of the appellant that the breakup of these marks for the
personal interview was approved by the Secretary Generals of both Lok Sabha and
Rajya Sabha, in 2001.The candidates who were called to appear for the personal
interview were sent call-letters, specifically informing them that they had to bring the
original certificates of NCC/Sports or the certificate of the computer course.

In case, a candidate has done a computer course, he/she should bring the original
certificate thereof at the time of Personal Interview. However, the credit for the same
shall be given only if it is accompanied by a declaration by the concerned institute
2
Page

that the computer course done by the candidate is recognised by the All India
Council for Technical Education (AICTE)/Department of Electronic Accreditation of
Computer Courses (DOEACC) or the course is equivalent to ‘O’ level in terms of
syllabus and duration of course as prescribed by DOEACC

The minimum qualifying marks in Personal Interview are 50%, 45% and 40% for
vacancies in General, OBC and SC/ST categories, respectively .Selection will be
made on the basis of overall performance of the candidates in the descriptive type
written papers and the personal interview, subject to the availability of vacancies. 8.
The decision of the Joint recruitment Cell regarding allocation of the successful
candidates to either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha Secretariat shall be final.and
against such reservation this appeal was constituted .

ISSUES

1.Whether the appeal petition is sustainable ?

2. whether the government has the right to make category reservation over the
provided facts?

3.Whether the entire initiation of proceedings and recruitment has been done in fair
and clear ?

4.Whether their happened the violation article 16 of Indian constitution ?.

5.Whether the act of reservation made thus is reasonable and valid?

PROVISION OF LAW

Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of
discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

Article 15(1) in The Constitution Of India 1949

(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion,
race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them
3

Article 12 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Page
Definition In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the
Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of
each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or
under the control of the Government of India

Article 21 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law

Article 39 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State: The State shall, in particular,
direct its policy towards securing

(a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means
to livelihood;

(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so
distributed as best to subserve the common good;

(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of
wealth and means of production to the common detriment;

(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;

(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of
children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to
enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;

(f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner
and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected
against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment

Article 16 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment

(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to
4

employment or appointment to any office under the State

Page
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of
birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect
or, any employment or office under the State

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing,
in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the
Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any
requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such
employment or appointment

(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the
reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens
which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services
under the State

(5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the
incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or
denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a
person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination

ARGUMENT BY APPELLANT

In was pointed out on behalf of the appellants that at the time of the interview the
exercise of checking the certificates was undertaken by the officers of the Joint
Recruitment Cell, by verifying the documents prior to the personal Interview. The
officers simply assisted the interview board, and saved their time. This exercise was
done in the presence of all the candidates, and they had the full knowledge thereof.
A candidate producing the ‘C’ Certificate of NCC was entitled to full 5 marks.
Similarly a candidate producing the computer course certificate was entitled to 2
marks. There was no discretion in awarding these marks. These marks were
deemed to be awarded by the members of the interview board. After the checking of
the certificates and the oral interview, 27 candidates were selected for the posts of
5
Page
Security Assistants Grade-II for Lok Sabha as against 37 vacancies, and 13 were
selected for Rajya Sabha as against 19 vacancies.

The respondents were some of the candidates who participated in this process but
were not selected. They filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi bearing Writ
Petition (C) No. 4835 of 2011. The respondents principally raised two contentions:
(1) firstly, that the splitting of the marks, in the interview, was not indicated to them in
advance, and (2) secondly, attainment of minimum cut-off marks (say 50% for the
general category) be adjudged out of 18 marks ear-marked for the oral interview,
and the marks for the NCC or the computer course certificates be considered only
thereafter

The appellants herein pointed out before the Learned Single Judge that the issue
was no longer res-integra, and had been decided in a judgment rendered by a Single
Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar & Anr. Vs Union of India
151 (2008) Delhi Law Times 353. It was a case of selection to the very cadre of
Security Assistants Grade-II in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, in the year 2006. The
judgment of the Learned Single Judge, which was confirmed by a Division Bench,
had held that prescribing the minimum cut-off for the skills in the interview could not
be faulted.

ARGUMENT BY RESPONDENT

Mr. R.K. Khanna, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the Learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have gone into an area
where they ought not to have gone, while exercising judicial review. In his
submission, the advertisement had clearly stated that the C-certificates in NCC or
the Sport certificates or the certificates in computer course were ‘desirable’.

The call letter specifically called upon the candidates to come with the original
certificates. How the marks ought to be given, out of 25 interview marks, was an
aspect to be decided by the interview board. He pointed out that even so, to avoid
6
Page

arbitrariness, the splitting of the marks was effected as per the decision of the
Secretaries of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, arrived at way back in 2001. Previous
selections were also done on that basis in 2006, and they were upheld by a Single
Judge and a Division Bench of Delhi High court. It was, therefore, not expected of
the High Court to go into that controversy once again. In any case assuming that the
controversy could be gone into afresh, while deciding the petition the Court had gone
into the question as to how the interview board ought to have given the marks, which
was outside the scope of judicial review.

Secondly, the Court ignored that the marks were given to the certificates uniformly,
and in that there was no discrimination whatsoever. In his submission, there was no
occasion for the court to impose its reading of the relevant requirements on to the
interview board Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents, on the other hand submitted that the Learned Single Judge of the High
Court was right in holding that Mahesh Kumar (supra) had not considered the issue
in the manner in which it was placed before the High Court in the present matter.
The advertisement clearly meant an interview of 25 marks. The splitting of the marks
of interview under various categories was not informed to the respondents anytime
prior to the interview

If the oral interview was of 18 marks, then the cut-off marks ought to have been
assessed out of 18 marks, and the marks for the certificates ought to have been
added subsequently. The manner in which the marks for the interview were allotted
was arbitrary, and it resulted into denial of equal opportunity in public employment.
She, therefore, submitted that the decisions of the High Court did not call for
interference by this Court.

.DECISION OF COURT

For the reasons stated above we allow this appeal and set-aside the impugned
judgments of the Single Judge as well as that of the Division Bench. Writ Petition
bearing No. 4835 of 2011 filed by the respondents will stand dismissed. In the facts
of the case however, there will be no order as to costs.

REASON FOR THE DECISION

7

The decisions rendered by the High Court were erroneous for one more reason. In
Page

the present case, the interview was to be of 25 marks. The view which has appealed
to the Learned Judges of the High Court would mean that the cut-off marks (say
50%) will have to be obtained out of 18 marks, whereas the advertisement clearly
stated that the cut-off marks had to be obtained in the Written Test and the Personal
Interview.

This meant obtaining cut-off marks out of 25 marks set out for interview as well. The
consequence of the view which is accepted by the High Court will be that it may as
well happen that candidates who did not have the NCC/Sports certificates or any
computer course certificates will obtain higher marks out of 18 marks, and will top
the list. On the other hand the candidates who have these certificates may not get
the cut-off marks out of 18, or even if they get those marks, they may land at the
lower level in the inter-se seniority in the merit order for selection.

This was certainly not meant to be achieved by the selection process, when these
certificates were declared in advance as ‘desirable’. In the impugned order the
Division Bench has recommended in its judgment, as quoted above that the
proficiency of the candidates producing certificates be assessed on a scale of 0 to 5.
That will mean holding one more test as far as computer course certificate is
concerned, or asking the candidates concerned to exhibit their skill in a particular
sport or as NCC Cadet. That was certainly not contemplated in the advertisement.
The advertisement only stated that the NCC/Sport certificate and the computer
course certificate recognised by AICTE/DOEACC were desirable.

The call-letter specifically stated they will be given credit at the time of interview. The
Joint Recruitment Cell did not want to go behind those certificates once they were
from the proper authorities, and therefore, the interview board fairly granted all the
marks to the candidates who produced those certificates, making them a component
out of 25 marks. It cannot be disputed that the appellants have applied a uniform
standard. The respondents who had filed the petition were all constables. The posts
of Security Assistants were being filled from amongst them.

Although, dress, manners and appearance was given 6 marks, behavior in

communication was allotted 6 marks and general awareness and knowledge of
duties involved in security service was allotted 6 marks, what was ‘desirable’ was
8

having the NCC/Sports or Computer course certificate. It was for the Lok Sabha and
Page

Rajya Sabha Secretariat to decide what qualifications they expected in the Security
Assistants. They did want persons with Sports/NCC and Computer course
certificates.

Therefore, they specifically mentioned those certificates as desirable. Specifying 5+2

marks for these certificates was in consonance with the objective to be achieved.
The method followed by the interview board in giving these certificates 7 out of 25
marks cannot, therefore, be faulted as denying equal opportunity in the matter of
public employment. Dissimilar candidates could not be expected to receive similar
treatment. Thus, in the present process of selection, there is no breach either of
Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India.

Having noted this factual and legal scenario, in our view there was nothing wrong in
the method applied by the appellants in the Selection of the Security Assistants
Grade-II. There was no discrimination whatsoever among the candidates called for
the interview, nor any departure from the advertised requirements. One can always
say that some other method would have been a better method, but it is not the job of
the Court to substitute what it thinks to be appropriate for that which the selecting
authority has decided as desirable. While taking care of the rights of the candidates,
the Court cannot lose sight of the requirements specified by the selecting authority.
What the High Court has proposed in the impugned orders amounts to re-writing the
rules for selection, which was clearly impermissible while exercising the power of
judicial review

PART 2

CRITICAL COMMENT

For recruiting candidates to a particular post a procedure is prescribed by the

experts in the field after carrying out the necessary research taking into
consideration the requirement of the job and nature of employment. One should not
lose sight of the fact that if the selection process is divided into series of steps then
each step has a purpose to serve and has been included with an objective, be it
written test/physical test or an interview

The procedure devised by the respondent eliminates arbitrariness to a great extent

9

as it is not just the whim of the members of the interview board. There is proper
Page

format for evaluation which is almost akin to another written examination.

In the present case, the norms were approved by the Secretary Generals of the Lok
Sabha and Rajya Sabha and in order to minimize any arbitrariness or personal
perception, separate marks were allocated for dress; manners and appearance;
behaviour in communication(whether courteous and disciplined); general awareness
and knowledge of duties involved in security services; skill and extracurricular
activities. In the oral interview, the marks were also to be given on the basis whether
the candidates had participated either in NCC or sports or paramilitary forces and the
weightage was also given for knowledge of computer operations. With this detailed
breakup of different heads under which, in the interview the marks were awarded to
the candidates, it is reasonable to infer that while assigning minimum 50% marks in
viva voce; the decision was arrived at in a thorough and scientific manner

As against the submissions of the appellants, the submission of the respondents has
been that although they secured high marks in the overall performance i.e the written
test and the interview combined, they found that other candidates were selected
though they had overall less merit than them, and yet they were shown as having
secured higher marks. After making an enquiry under the Right to Information Act,
they came to know that the selected candidates were given more marks for their
having the NCC and /or Computer Course Certificates, leading to the selection of
candidates having less merit. They contended that the method of splitting up of
marks was not informed to them. This was unjust, discriminatory and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The question before us is whether the interview board can be faulted for making the
certificate marks a component of the 25 interview marks, and whether thereby the
candidates were in any way taken by surprise. In this connection we must note that
the appellants had advertised that the NCC/Sports and Computer certificates were
‘desirable’. The call-letter, in paragraph 5 thereof, specifically called upon the
candidates to bring their certificates at the time of the Personal Interview. It further
stated that credit for the same shall be given only if the certificate was accompanied
by a declaration by the concerned institute that the course done by the candidate
was recognized by AICTE or DOEACC.
10

Right to Equality is one of the basic fundamental rights that the constitution of India
Page

guarantees to all the citizens of the country. Article 16 deals with the equality of
opportunity in matters of public employment. Equal opportunity is a term which has
differing definitions and there is no consensus as to the precise meaning. The
Constitution of India has given a wide interpretation of this article. Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) principles apply to:

Access to jobs

Conditions of employment

Relationships in the workplace

The evaluation of performance and

The opportunity for training and career development.

“Article 16 is an instance of the application of the general rule with special reference
to the opportunity of appointments under the State. It says that there shall be
equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State.

“If it stood alone all the backward communities would go to the wall in a society of
uneven basic social structure; the said rule of equality would remain only a utopian
conception unless a practical content was given to it… that is why the makers of the
Constitution introduced clause (4) in Art. 16.

“The expression “nothing in this article” is a legislative device to express its intention
in a most emphatic way that the power conferred thereunder is not limited in an what
by the main provision but falls outside it. It has not really carved out an exception but
has preserved a power untrammelled by the other provisions of the Articl

What Article 16 guarantees is equality of opportunity in matters of appointment in

State services. Equality of opportunity connotes that every citizen shall be eligible for
employment or appointment to any office under the State according to his
qualifications and capability, as held by the Supreme Court in State of J. & K. v.
K.V.N.T. Khol AIR 1974 S.C. Article 16 therefore does not prevent the State from
prescribing the necessary qualifications and selective tests for recruitment of
11

government services.
Page

DETAILED DISCUSSION ON ARTICLE 16:

Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.-

(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to
employment or appointment to any office under the State. The rule applies only in
respect of employments or offices which are held under the state. i.e., the person
holding office as subordinate to the state. The clause accordingly, does not prevent
the state from laying down the requisite qualifications for recruitment for government
services, and it is open to the authority to lay down such other conditions of
appointment as would be conducive to the maintenance of proper discipline among
the servants.

The qualification pointed may, besides mental excellence, include physical fitness,
sense of discipline, moral integrity and loyalty to the state. The expression ‘ Matters
relating to employment and appointment’ must include all matters in relation to
employment both prior and subsequent to the employment which are incidental to
the employment and form parts of the terms of the conditions of the such
employment

Thus the guarantee in clause (1) will cover the (a) initial appointments, (b)
Promotions, (c) Termination of employment, (d) Matters relating to the salary,
periodical increments, leave, gratuity, pension, Age of superannuation etc. Principle
of equal pay for equal work is also covered in section 16(1). In the light of the case
of M Thomas v State of Kerala Justice V.R Krishna Iyer, rightly pointed out that the
experience of reservation in practice showed that the benefits were, by and large,
snatched away by the top creamy layer of the backward classes or classes, thus
keeping the weakest amongst weak always weak and leaving the fortunate layers to
consume the whole cake. Substantially lightened by the march of time, measures of
better education and more opportunities of employment.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of
birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect
of, any employment or office under the State. The prohibited grounds of discussions
are religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them.
Thewords, any employment or office under the State make it clear that Article
12

16(2) also applies only to public employment.

Page
In K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka AIR 1985 S.C. 1495, the Supreme
Court has suggested that the reservations in favor of backward classes must be
based on the mean test. It has been further suggested that the policy of reservations
should be reviewed every five years or so and if a class has reached up to that level
where it does not need the reservation. Its name should be deleted from the list of
backward classes.

Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 477)

Upheld Implementation of separate reservation for other backward classes in central

government jobs.

Ordered to exclude Creamy layer of other backward classes from enjoying

reservation facilities.

Ordered to restrict reservations within the 50% limit.

Declared separate reservations for economically poor among forward castes as

invalid.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing,
in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the
Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any
requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such
employment or appointment. M R Balaji v Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649 Court put 50%
cap on reservations in almost all states except Tamil Nadu (69%, under 9th
schedule) and Rajasthan (68% quota including 14% for forward castes, post-Gujjar
violence 2008) has not exceeded 50% limit. Tamil Nadu exceeded the limit in 1980.
Andhra Pradesh tried to exceed the limit in 2005 which was again stalled by the High
Court.

(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the
reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens
which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services
under the State.
13

The scope of Article 16 (4) was considered by the Supreme Court in Devadasan v.
Page

Union of India[x], AIR 1964 S.C. 179. In this case “carry forward rule” made by the
Government to regulate the appointment of persons of backward classes in
government services was involved.

The Supreme Court struck down the “carry forward rule” as unconstitutional on the
ground that the power vested in the government cannot be so exercised so as to
deny reasonable equality of opportunity in matters of public employment for the
members of classes other than backward classes. In this case, the reservation of
posts to the members of backward classes had exceeded 50% and had gone up to
68% due to “carry forward rule.”

The Supreme Court held that each year of recruitment must be considered by itself
and the reservation for each year should not be excessive so as to create ma
monopoly or interfere unduly with the legitimate claims of the rest of the society. So
the court held that reservation should be less than 50%, but how much less than
50% should depend upon the prevailing situations.[xi]S. Rly. v. Rangachari AIR
1962 SC 36, State of Punjab v. Hiralal 1970(3) SCC 567, Akhil Bharatiya Soshit
Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 246 Reservation of
appointments or posts under Article 16(4) included promotions.

This was overruled in Indira Sawhney & Ors v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477 :
1992 SCC 217 and held that Reservations cannot be applied in promotions.

(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making Provision for
reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or
classes of posts in the services under the State in favor of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately
represented in the services under the State.

This clause does not affect the decision as regards other backward classesbut
makes it inapplicable to the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes. Justifying
reservations for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in the
promotion, the Court had at one point held that even their seniority acquired by the
promotion of the general class candidates could not be affected by the subsequent
promotion of the general class candidates. S. Vinodkumar vs. Union of India 1996 6
14

SCC 580 Relaxation of qualifying marks and standard of evaluation in matters of

Page

reservation in promotion was not permissible.

(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled
vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance
with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a
separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such
class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in
which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent. Reservation
on the total number of vacancies of that year.

(5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the
incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or
denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a
person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination. UOI
v/s. S. Kalugasalamoorthy[xvi] held that when a person is selected on the basis of
his own seniority, the scope of considering and counting him against reserved quota
does not arise.

T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka[xvii] (2002) 8 SCC 481, P.A. Inamdar v.
State of Maharashtra 2005 AIR (SC) 3226

Supreme Court ruled that reservations cannot be enforced on Private Unaided

educational institutions.

On a plain reading of Articles 15 and 16 one is likely to form the impression that
clause (4) of Article 15 is an exception to the rest of the provisions of that article and
to clause (2) of Article 29 and that clause (4) of Article 16 is an exception to the rest
of the provisions of that article. In other words, while clause (4) of Article 15 permits
what the rest of that article or clause (2) of Article 29 prohibits, clause (4) of Article
16 permits what the rest of that article prohibits.

This, indeed, was the initial impression of the Supreme Court also. This impression
continued to rule until some of the judges in the State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas
opined that clause (4) of Article 16 was not an exception to clause (1) or (2) of that
article. This view in Thomas was reiterated, much more emphatically by Chinnappa
Reddy, J. in his concurring opinion in A.B.S.K. Sangh v. Union of India and it has
15

finally been accepted by the Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (the Mandal
Page

case).
Thus clause (4) of Article 16 is not an exception to the rest of that article, but rather it
is a facet of equality of opportunity guaranteed in clause (1) of that article and an
effective method of realising and implementing it. Clause (4) does not derogate from
anything in clauses (1) and (2) of Article 16 but rather gives them positive support
and content. It serves the same function, i.e. securing of equality of opportunity, as
do clauses (1) and (2). Obviously, therefore, it is as much a fundamental right as
clauses (1) and (2) or any other provision of that article.

Thus, it was clear that credit was to be given to those certificates as a part of the
interview. The respondents, therefore, can not make any grievance that they were
taken by surprise by giving of 7 (out of 25) marks for such certificates to the
successful candidates. Nor can the respondents say that any prejudice is caused to
them, since all candidates having such certificates were uniformly given 5 and/or 2
marks for the certificates, and those who were not having them were not given such
marks. The process cannot, therefore, be called arbitrary.

The decisions rendered by the High Court were erroneous for one more reason. In
the present case, the interview was to be of 25 marks. The view which has appealed
to the Learned Judges of the High Court would mean that the cut-off marks (say
50%) will have to be obtained out of 18 marks, whereas the advertisement clearly
stated that the cut-off marks had to be obtained in the Written Test and the Personal
Interview. This meant obtaining cut-off marks out of 25 marks set out for interview as
well.

The consequence of the view which is accepted by the High Court will be that it may
as well happen that candidates who did not have the NCC/Sports certificates or any
computer course certificates will obtain higher marks out of 18 marks, and will top
the list. On the other hand the candidates who have these certificates may not get
the cut-off marks out of 18, or even if they get those marks, they may land at the
lower level in the inter-se seniority in the merit order for selection. This was certainly
not meant to be achieved by the selection process, when these certificates were
declared in advance as ‘desirable’.
16
Page