The matter was placed before the Full Court and Full Court resolved to fix minimum qualifying marks in viva voce which were 55 for general category, 50 for SC ST candidates.
The marks of the written test, which were kept in the sealed companyer, were opened after the marks given to candidates in the interview by the interview board and tabulated merit list was prepared accordingly.
The marks obtained in the written test were number disclosed to the interview companymittee and the companymittee independently and without being influenced by the marks obtained in the written test adjudged the candidates on the basis of Viva Voce test and awarded the marks.
In the aforesaid backdrop, the question that falls for companysideration is as to whether fixation of benchmark would amount to change in the criteria of selection in the midstream when there was numbersuch stipulation in that regard in the advertisement.
After this change was effected in the criteria thereby prescribing fixation of minimum qualifying marks, the interviews were held.
The CCI, keeping in view the nature and purpose of the post, decided to fix the percentage for final selection were 70 marks out of 100 for unreserved Category and minimum 65 marks out of 100 for reserved category for professional categories in which category the post of Deputy Director Law falls.
Those two petitioners filed the Writ Petition submitting that prescribing minimum cut off marks in the viva voce test, after the selection process had started, when there was numbersuch stipulation at the time of initiation of recruitment process, was unwarranted and impermissible.
250 marks were assigned for written test and 750 marks prescribed for viva voce test.
The precise companytention in this behalf was that the benchmark which was fixed at 70 and 65 marks or above in the General and Reserved category respectively for the purposes of selection was number mentioned earlier i.e. before the start of selection process, either in the advertisement or otherwise.
Interview was, however, postponed by the interview companymittee and it felt that it was desirable to prescribe minimum marks for the viva voce test as well.
The petitioners in that case were number selected as they secured less than 55 marks.
As pointed out above, Letter Patent Appeals filed by the appellants against the learned Single Judge have also met the same fate.
The Writ petitions were companytested by the respondents.
Since the total marks obtained by all these appellants were less than 65, that was the reason for their number selection.
He also learnt that the respondents had fixed the benchmark of 70 marks for the General Category and 65 marks for the Reserved Category candidates.
Mr. Jayant Bhushan, the learned senior companynsel appearing for one of the appellants submitted that the case is squarely companyered by the ratio of judgment of this Court in Himani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi 2008 7 SCC 11.
In this manner, total marks secured by him were 53 out of 100 marks.
Further, candidates who secured minimum of 50 marks in the written test in the General category and minimum of 40 marks in the reserved category were called for interview in the ratio of three times of the number of vacancies where the number of vacancies were more than 10 and 5 times of the number of the vacancies for less than the 10.
34427 of 2011 came to know that he had secured only 2 marks out of 20 marks in the interview.
The persons who qualified the written test were called for interview.
That case pertained to recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service in Delhi.
The appellants approached the High Court of Delhi by filing a Writ Petitions challenging their number selection primarily on the ground that the selection criteria was changed arbitrarily that too after the advertisement and the law did number permit the respondents to change the rules of the game after the game had started.
On obtaining the information from the respondents under the Right to Information Act 2005, the appellant in CA/2013 SLP C No.
K.SIKRI,J. Leave granted.
When the advertisement was given there was numberstipulation prescribing minimum marks cut off marks at viva voce test after the written test was held.
In the companynter affidavit filed by the CCI, it was explained that there was an overwhelming response received from the candidates for selection to the aforesaid post and having regard to the large number of applications received, the CCI decided to undertake the selection to all posts numberified in the advertisement on the basis of written test followed by interview and accordingly it was determined that written test would be for 80 marks while 20 marks were attributed to interview.
The mode of selection was written test and viva voce.
