Singh, UDC & Ors Vs. Employees State Insurance  INSC 103 (22 March 1990)
Rangnath Misra Rangnath Punchhi, M.M. Ramaswamy, K.
1990 AIR 1104 1990 SCR (2) 119 1990 SCC (2) 367 JT 1990 (2) 180 1990 SCALE
State Insurance Act, 1948: Sections 2-A. 17(2) and 97(1) (2) (xx).
State Insurance Corporation--Insurance Inspec- tor-Recruitment of--Written Test
and Interview--No pass marks prescribed for interview--Selection made on the
basis of 40 marks in the interview held reasonable.
Law--Post-Filling up of vacancies--2/3 by promo- tion and 1/3 by direct
recruitment--Panel--Direct Recruit quota partially filled--Filling of
accumulated vacancies from out of old penal-Desirability of.
respondent Corporation prepared a panel for the post of Insurance Inspector,
for filling up the direct-recruit quota, on the basis of written test and
interview. In the absence of prescribed marks for the interview--40% was made
as basic limit for selection.
unsuccessful candidates challenged their rejection before the Central
Administrative Tribunal contending that the selection based on 40% marks in the
interview was unjus- tified. Petitions were also filed by the successful candi-
dates seeking directions to the respondent Corporation to issue appointments
pursuant to the panel prepared.
tribunal directed that a fresh select list be pre- pared for filling up the
remaining vacancies on the basis of the total marks obtained in the written
examination and interview, in disregard of the qualifying marks of the
interview. Hence this appeal. The successful candidates also filed a Writ
Petition contending that they were entitled to appointment order since there
was no indication of the expiry of the panel.
the appeal in part and disposing of the matter, this Court, 120
1. Interview has its own place in the matter of the selection process and the
choice of the candidate. Once this is recognised, it would be appropriate to
require every candidate to pass the interview test and for that purpose there
should be a basic limit provided. In the absence of any prescription of
qualifying marks for the interview test the prescription of 40% as applicable
for the written exami- nation seems to be reasonable. [123C-D] Rajesh Sood
& Or3'. v. Director-General, Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.,
decided on August 7,
of the vacancies existing upto 31st December, 1989, relatable to the one-third quota should be filled up out of the penal
after giving credit to appointments already made. The remaining vacancies
should be filled up by holding of a fresh recruitment examination. The scheme
intended for recruitment should be on the basis of an examination com- prising
of written test and interview. In the oral examina- tion the pass mark shall be
40% and 40% pass marks shall be insisted separately for the written as also the
oral test for qualifying in the selection. [123B; D-E]
JURISDICTION: Civil Writ Petition No. 226 of 1986.
Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
Appeal No. 1263 of 1990.
the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.1989 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in T.A. No. 1146 of 1986.
L.M. Singhvi, Dr. Gauri Shankar, C. Mukopadhya, P.N. Misra and H.S. Parihar,
for the Petitioners.
Reddy, Vivek Gambhir, S.K. Gambhir, R.D. Upadhyaya and Surender Karnail for the
Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. Petitioners are employees
under the State Insurance Corporation, respondent no. 1. According to the
notification dated 22nd of April, 1977, issued in exer- cise of powers 121
conferred by s. 97(1), ( 1, 2)(xxx), s. 2A and s. 17(2) of the Employees State
Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter re- ferred to as 'the Act') which came by way
of supersession of the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Recruitment)
Regulations, 1965, the post of Insurance Inspector/Manager Grade II was treated
partly as selection and partly as nonselection. There was no age limit for
departmental candi- dates and two-thirds of the vacancies were to be filled up
promotion and onethird by competitive examination under the Rules. By
advertisement dated 6th
applications were invited for filling up the one-third vacancies by direct
recruitment to the category of post of Insurance Inspector/Manager Grade II. The
petitioners in this applica- tion under Art. 32 of the Constitution responded
to the said advertisement and were in due course declared as successful in the
test. In consideration of the fact that a good number of vacancies were then
existing and in anticipation of the position that more vacancies were about to
occur, a select list was drawn up for the existing and future vacancies. In the
said select list petitioners featured at Sr. nos. 114, 116, 121, 159, 171, 172
and 188 respectively. The panel was notified and in accordance with the
practice petitioners along with other successful candidates were individually
intimated by respondent no. 2 on 1.9.1984.
already, indicated, the direct recruitment was on the basis of examination and
interview. The advertisement did not prescribe any pass marks in the interview
though for the written examination 40% was prescribed. Selection was, however,
made on the basis of 40% in the interview test and those who did not secure 40%
in the interview were not selected. Challenge was made by the unsuccessful
candidates questioning their rejection by contending that in the ab- sence of
any prescription of pass marks for the interview test, there was no
justification to apply the 40% basis.
Petitions were also filed when the respondents instead of appointing people
from the panel of successful candidates went on filling up existing vacancies
out of the category of promotees. Such petitions were pending before the Calcutta, Madras and Andhra Pradesh High Courts when the Central
Administrative Tribunals came to be set up. These were transferred to the
respective Benches of the Central Admin- istrative
Tribunals and on being clubbed were disposed of by a common judgment dated 28th
of April, 1989, by the Hydera- bad Bench of the Central Administrative
Tribunal. The Tribu- nal held:
would direct in these cases that the respondents shall work out and estimate
the vacancies available upto 20th 122 June, 1986 accurately (we have used the
word 'accurately' as an apprehension has been expressed that direct recruits
are not getting their due since over 320 posts were filled up between May, 1986
and December, 1988 by promotees on ad-hoc basis or otherwise). After such
estimation, the respondents shall deduct therefrom 116 vacancies which have
already been filled and make available the remaining vacancies to the
applicants and others who took the examination on the basis of aggregate marks,
i.e. total marks obtained in the written test and the oral interview. Such of
the applicants in all the three cases before us and heard by us at Hyderabad,
Madras and Calcutta, who come within the zone of selection in accordance with
this procedure as directed by us would be entitled to appointment." The
writ petition is by the successful candidates whose names appear in the panel
but who have not been given ap- pointments. They have contended that the
respondents were entitled to the issue of appointment orders to them inasmuch
as vacancies exist and there was no indication that the life of the select list
would expire either at the end of one year or on the expiry of the further
extended period of six months and when there has been no fresh select list as
decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal referred to above has been
assailed by special leave chal- lenging the direction of the Tribunal that the
fresh select list filling up the remaining vacancies as on 20th June, 1986,
should be prepared on the basis of total marks ob- tained in the written
examination and interview in disregard of the qualifying marks for the latter.
We granted special leave and have heard the writ petition and the civil appeal
indicated, the last list on the basis of recruitment examination was drawn up
in 1984. There have been a good number of vacancies then existing and subse- quently
a number of them have arisen as against which only 116 appointments have been
made, including 16 out of the reserved categories. At one stage of the hearing
we had indicated to Shri Madhav Reddy, appearing for the respond- entCorporation
that the existing vacancies should be filled up out of the panel of 1984 and in
answer to this sugges- tion, an affidavit has been filed to say that candidates
have been waiting for the holding of fresh recruitment examination and if out
of the panel of 1984 all the existing vacancies are directed to be filled up,
they would be frus- trated. There is force in the submission. The Tribunal in
its decision has indicated 123 that even upto 20th June, 1984, there were some vacancies which were available to be
filled up out of the panel. On account of respondents' inaction in holding of
annual re- cruitment examinations, vacancies have accumulated. Keeping all
these aspects in view, we direct that 50% of the vacan- cies existing upto 31st
of December, 1989, relatable to the one-third quota should be filled up out of
the panel after giving credit to 116 appointments noticed by the Tribunal.
remaining vacancies should be filled up by holding of a fresh recruitment
examination latest before 30th of Septem- ber, 1990.
as the remaining question that was debated before the Tribunal is concerned, we
are of the view that the scheme intended for recruitment should be on the basis
of an examination comprising of written test and interview. We agree with the
submission of Shri Madhav Reddy that inter- view has its own place in the
matter of the selection proc- ess and the choice of the candidate. Once this is
recog- nised, it would be appropriate to require every candidate to pass the
interview test and for that purpose there should be a basic limit provided. In
the absence of any prescription of qualifying marks for the interview test the
same pre- scription of 40% as applicable for the written examination seems to
be reasonable. That has been the view expressed by one of us (Punchhi, J.) in a
decision (Rajesh Sood & Ors. v. Director-General, Employees State Insurance
Corporation & Anr., decided on August 7, 1985) to which our attention has been
drawn. We approve of the view. Accordingly, we modify the direction of the
Administrative Tribunal and hold that in the oral examination the pass mark
shall be 40% and 40% pass marks shall be insisted separately for the written as
also the oral test for qualifying in th selection.
appeal is partly allowed and both the matters are disposed of by this common
judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed in part.