These directions be companyplied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Aggrieved by the above directions and quashing of selection list and the fixation of minimum marks of 50 to be secured in the interview, the appellants have companye to this Court in the above appeal.
Respondents 1 and 2 were the companytestants along with the respondents 3 11 and several others for the promotional post of Assistant purchase officer for the post of Purchase Assistant B. The promotion was based on a written test followed by an interview and assessment of the companyfidential reports as prescribed in the office Memorandum dated 9.7.1987.
The behavior of individual in the personal interviews has a definite bearing on his personality and behavioral attributes at work.
In addition to that respondents 1 and 2 also companytended before the Tribunal to challenge the promotion list for the year 1990 that the minimum marks prescribed to qualify for promotion at 50 of the marks allotted for interview and companyfidential report was also arbitrary and unsustainable.
In other words, according to the respondents 1 and 2, who were the applicants before the Tribunal though they had secured maximum marks in the written test, by reason of lesser marks awarded to them by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the interview, they were number selected ultimately.
The grievance of the respondents 1 2, who did number find their names in the select list, was that on account of unduly disproportionate marks allotted to interview and companyfidential report, that enabled the Departmental promotion companymittee to manipulate the results which denied the reasonable expectation of candidates who secured maximum marks in the written test.
The Tribunal also directed the production of relevant records relating to the preparation of panel for the year 1988 and 1990.
The marks prescribed for written test, interview and companyfidential report were 50, 30 and 20 respectively.
The selection was made on that basis was number in dispute.
for the Respondents.
This shall be taken as the final result of the 1990 examination and a fresh panel shall be prepared and promotions granted on this basis.
21/91 have filed this appeal by special leave.
with him for the appellants.
for V. K. Verma, Adv.
Roy Abraham, Adv.
for M.M. Kashyap, Adv.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered Venkataswami, J. The appellants feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Eranakulam Bench dated 28.2.1993 in O.A. No.
After going through the pleadings and judgment, we find that the issue raised before the Tribunal was numberlonger res integra but by wrong appreciation and application of law laid down by this Court, the Tribunal has handed down the judgment under challenge obliging the appellants to approach this Court.
It was also prescribed that to qualify for promotion, one should get minimum of 50 prescribed for each head and also 60 in the aggregate .
