Haryana: Can’t give zero marks in interview when other parameters are met, says HC

The court was dealing with a petition by Jasbir Singh filed in the year 2017 seeking quashing of result for the post of an assistant at Chaudhary Bansi Lal University

The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that a candidate can’t be awarded zero marks in an interview, if he has qualified for a post on other parameters laid down in an advertisement.

The court found the selection process prescribed by the university was neither exclusively nor predominantly interview-based. (HT)

“Such an exercise defeats the very purpose of prescribing a composite, merit-based selection, and is manifestly inconsistent with the settled position that a recruiting authority must adhere to the criteria and procedure declared by it in the advertisement. The impugned action of the selection committee is thus vulnerable not merely on the ground of an irrational assessment, but on the more fundamental ground of jurisdictional transgression,” the bench of justice HS Brar said.

The court was dealing with a petition by Jasbir Singh filed in the year 2017 seeking quashing of result for the post of an assistant at Chaudhary Bansi Lal University, Bhiwani and further demanding that he be considered for the same post .

The court was told that according to the advertisement, selection was to be made on the basis of performance under four components: computer typing, general aptitude test, academic qualifications and work experience. He secured 35 out of 80 marks and was the most meritorious candidate. Thereafter, the candidates were called for interview, in which he was awarded no marks out of 20 marks and was declared ‘not found suitable.’

The court found the selection process prescribed by the university was neither exclusively nor predominantly interview-based. Further, it came to light that in the interview he was not awarded any marks.

“It is prima facie established that the selection committee has thereby converted the multidimensional selection process into an interview-oriented process by declaring candidates unsuitable without considering their comparative merit under the other prescribed parameters,” it said adding that the committee’s treatment of the petitioner is a condition which was conspicuously absent from the advertisement, and thereby create a new disqualification for the candidates.

It asserted that once the university had prescribed an objective distribution among different parameters, the selection committee was bound to operate within that framework.

“In the present case, the petitioner was excluded without any consideration of his comparative merit under criterion A to D (initial four parameters). The absence of a reasoned basis for the nil award, along with the exclusion of a candidate on a threshold that was never notified, constitutes arbitrary and unguided exercise of power, violating Article 14,” it held asking the university to consider the petitioner for appointment and pass an appropriate order within a period of six weeks.