SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA versus KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS. on 8 October 2021

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 6 S.C.R.

ASRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA

v.

KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 6217 of 2021)

BOCTOBER 08, 2021

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDB. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

Service Law – Appointment – Appellant appointed as JuniorLab Technician in the first respondent-Institute – Challenged byCthird respondent – Writ petition dismissed by Single Judge – Appealallowed by Division Bench – Held: Marks awarded to the thirdrespondent and the appellant bore a nexus to the yardstick determinedby the Selection Committee – No mala fides could be imputed to theSelection Committee – Selection list not challenged by respondent –DHis only ground for challenge was that he had to be selected sincehe was more meritorious as he had better qualifying marks – Thus,determining the legality of the selection list and perusing the entireselection list to determine whether the appellant’s selection wasarbitrary was erroneous – Division Bench transgressed the limitsof challenge in the writ petition – Constitution of India – ArticleE226.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The third respondent did not challenge theentire selection list dated 20 April 2009. He challenged theFappellant’s selection and sought a direction for his appointmentin place of the appellant. The third respondent did not challengethe entire selection since he and the appellant had applied underthe same category, namely Category 1 – OBC. The basis of theclaim of the third respondent to the post was that since he hadsecured higher marks as compared to the appellant in theGqualifying examination in the Lab Technician’s course, he oughtto have been selected for the post. It was in the writ appeal thatthe third respondent challenged the selection criteria of allottingmarks for experience and the interview. [Para 13][1153-D-E;1154-A]

H

SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA v. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL

H

SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA v. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL

1.2 Before proceeding to refer to the marks allotted to thethird respondent and the appellant by the Selection Committeefor experience and at the interview, it is necessary to refer to thecriteria for allocation of marks devised by the SelectionCommittee. The Minutes of the Meeting of the SelectionCommittee state that the committee resolved to giveproportionate weightage to the length of the service, with specialpreference to those candidates who have worked in governmentmedical colleges. For the selection to the post of a ‘Junior LabTechnician’, the marks obtained in the qualifying examinationwere assigned a weightage of eighty-five percent. Ten marks wereallotted to experience. Five marks were allotted for the personalityof the candidate, as adjudged in the interview. The SelectionCommittee laid down two yardsticks for provision of marks forexperience: (a) length of work experience of the candidate; and(b) preference would be given to those who had worked in teachinghospitals of government / autonomous medical colleges. Therationale of the Selection Committee on differentiating betweenwork experience in a private and government institute was thatthose who had worked in a government institute would be moresuitable for the post due to the similarity of working conditionsowing to the fact that the first respondent is a government medicalinstitution. It is in this background that this Court needs todetermine whether the marks allotted to the appellant in thecategory of experience and personality are arbitrary. The appellantat the time of submitting the application had a one year workexperience in Babuji Medical College, Devanagere (a privateinstitution) and three years of work experience with the firstrespondent. On the other hand, the respondent at the time of theapplication, had six months’ experience of working under a doctorwho was undertaking private practice. Not only did the appellanthave more years of work experience, he had work experience ina governmental institution. Hence, the marks awarded to the thirdrespondent and the appellant bore a nexus to the yardstickdetermined by the Selection Committee. On a comparison of themarks allotted to both the candidates with reference to theyardstick determined by the Selection Committee, no mala fidescould be imputed to the Selection Committee. Nor is there an A

B

C

DEF

G

H

[2021] 6 S.C.R.

Aobvious or glaring error or perversity. The Court does not sit inappeal over the decision of the Selection Committee. [Paras 15,16][1155-B-H; 1156-A]

1.3 The respondent had not challenged the selection list orthe inclusion of the experience and the interview component forBthe determination of the merit list in the Writ Petition but hadonly sought his appointment within the criteria prescribed. TheDivision Bench of the High Court set aside the appointment ofthe appellant on two grounds. First, the marks provided forcandidates at the interview and for experience category wereheld to be arbitrary. To arrive at this conclusion, the DivisionCBench referred to the entire select list and found allegeddiscrepancies in the allotment of the marks for experience and apattern where all the selected candidates were given highermarks for experience and at the interview. Second, the DivisionBench held that the advertisement issued by the first respondent

Ddid not mention the criterion of work experience but onlyprovided the minimum educational qualifications. Thus, it heldthat the rules of the game were changed after the process hadstarted. The appointment of the appellant was set aside by theDivision Bench by finding that the additional selection criteriadevised and the marks provided in those criteria were arbitrary.EAs observed earlier, the selection list was not challenged by therespondent. His only ground for challenge was that he had to beselected since he was ‘more meritorious’ as he had betterqualifying marks. Therefore, determining the legality of theselection list and perusing the entire selection list to determine Fwhether the selection of the appellant was arbitrary was erroneousas the Division Bench transgressed the limits of challenge in thewrit petition. The impugned judgment and order of the High Courtof Karnataka is set aside. [Paras 19-21]

Nagraj v. Karnataka Institute of Medical ScienceGDecision of Karnataka High Court in WP Nos. 62758-62760/2009 – referred to.

K Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC512 : [2008] 2 SCR 1025; H

SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA v. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICALSCIENCES & ORS.

Bishnu Biswas v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 774 :[2014] 4 SCR 625 – held inapplicable.

Case Law Reference

[2008] 2 SCR 1025held inapplicablePara 17[2014] 4 SCR 625held inapplicablePara 17

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6217 of2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2017 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Dharwad Bench in Writ Appeal No.100580 of 2015 (S-RES).

S. N. Bhat, D. P. Chaturvedi, Advs. for the Appellant.

Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Parikshit Angadi, Rajesh Inamdar,Anirudh Sanganeria, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. By a judgment dated 31 March 2017[1], a Division Bench of theHigh Court of Karnataka, at Dharwad allowed an appeal filed againstthe judgment of the Single Judge[2]. The Division Benchquashed theselection of the appellant to the post of ‘Junior Lab Technician’ in thefirst respondent and directed it to consider the case of the third respondentfor appointment to thepost. The appellant moved this Court in SpecialLeave Petition to challenge the decision of the Division Bench. Leavewas granted on1 October 2021.

2. On 2 September 2008, the first respondent issued a notificationinviting applications for thirty-five vacancies in the post of ‘Junior LabTechnician’. The notification bifurcated the available vacancies on thebasis of category and stipulated the minimum qualifications required forselection. The relevant portion of the notification reads as follows:

1. Junior Lab Technicians:- General Merit 33 years, SC/ST/Cat. I, 38 years and for other category 36 years. Pass in PUCwith Chemistry and Laboratory Technician Training Course orpass in SSLC and 2 years Vocational Diploma Course in Laboratory 1 WA No. 10580/2015

2 WP No. 63973/2009

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1148SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ATechnician or Pass PUC with Science and 2 years LaboratoryTechnician Course conducted by Para Medical Board, Karnatakaor Pass in SSLC and 3 years Diploma in Medical LaboratoryTechnology in conducted by Para Medical Board, Karnataka.

3. Both the appellant and third respondent applied for the post inBcategory 1(OBC) in which one vacancy was advertised.The SelectionCommittee consisted of the Additional Secretary, Department of Healthand Family Welfare (Medical Education), Director of Medical Education,a representative of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences andthe Director, Principal and CAO of the first respondent. On 22 August2008, the Selection Committee assembled to discuss the modalities ofCselection. It was decided that the percentage of marks obtained in thequalifying exam in the Laboratory Technician’s Course would beconverted to 85%. Of the 15% marks set out for the interview, 10% ofthe marks were to be set apart for the length of work experience and/oradditional training in teaching hospitals of a medical college, with specialDpreference to those who had worked in teaching hospitals of government/autonomous medical colleges. The remaining 5% marks were to beassigned to the personality of the candidate based on the viva-voce. Therelevant extract of the Minutes of the Meeting is extracted below:

“The Selection Committee consisting of the Additional Secretary,EHealth & Family Welfare Department (Medical Education),Director of Medical Education, representative of the Rajiv GandhiUniversity of Health Sciences, Director, Principal and CAO ofKIMS, Hubli held a meeting on 22.12.2008 at 11.30 a.m. to discussthe modalities of selection (Advertisement is dated 02.09.2008,prior to this). It was decided that in order to select the mostFsuitable candidates, proportionate weightage based on thelength of experience and/or additional training to the extentof 10 marks be given to those candidates who had workexperience and/or additional training in Medical collegeteaching hospitals and especially those who had worked inGGovernment/ Autonomous Medical College TeachingHospitals. It was agreed that the type of work in theseinstitutions most closely resembled the working conditionsat ‘ Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli andhence the candidates who had experience in suchinstitutions would be the most suitable. It was also decidedH

SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA v. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICALSCIENCES & ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

to set apart a maximum of 5 marks for the personality of thecandidate and his/her presentation and performance. Themarks obtained in the interview (maximum 15) would be added tothe average percentage obtained in the qualifying examinationreduced to 85%. The total marks thus obtained by the candidateswould be tabulated in the order of merit and final list would beprepared based on the roster system.”

(emphasis supplied)

The appellant scored an aggregate of 66.77%, while the thirdrespondent scored 76.3% in the qualifying examination in the para medicalcourse. The interview for the selection of candidates for the post washeld on 22, 23 and 24 December 2008.

4. The appellant was given 9.5 marks in the experience categoryand 4.5 marks in the personality/presentation category. On the otherhand, the third respondentreceived one mark each in the components ofexperience and personality/presentation. On the cumulation of the marksreceived in the three categories namely, qualifying marks, experienceand interview, the appellant secured 70.86 marks while the third respondentsecured 66.84 marks. Since the appellant cumulatively received thehighest marks in category 1, he was appointed to the post of Junior LabTechnician in category 1 on 21 April 2009.

5. The third respondentinstituted a writ petition under Article 226of the Constitution before the High Court of Karnataka to challenge theappointment of the appellant. He sought a direction for quashing theappointment of the appellant and his appointment in place of the appellantto the post.It was contended that the selection of the appellant to thepost, inspite of having scored lower marks in the qualifying examinationas compared to him was arbitrary. The petition was resisted by theappellant on the following grounds:

(i) The third respondent ought to have approached theKarnataka Administrative Tribunal to redress his grievances;

(ii) The Selection Committee is an expert body which wasentitled to bifurcate and assign 85% for the marks in thequalifying examination in the para medical course, 10% forexperience in a recognized health institution and 5% forvivo-voce; and

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(iii)The appellant passed his para medical course in 2002-2003and had three years’ experience in the hospital of the firstrespondentand one year’s experience in Bapuji MedicalCollege, Davangere. On the other hand, the third respondentpassed his para medical course in 2007 and hadexperienceonly of six months working under a private medicalBpractitioner.

6. By a judgment dated 7 August 2015, the Single Judge dismissedthe writ petition for the reason that (i) the advertisement stipulated thata candidate who had passed PUC must possess two years’ experience;and (ii) since the third respondent did not have the requisite experienceCas prescribed, the Selection Committee was justified in awarding onlyone mark under the head of experience.

7. The third respondent assailed the correctness of the judgementof the Single Judgein an intra court appeal and urged the followingsubmissions : (i) the selection process was skewed to favour ‘insider’Dcandidates, namely candidates who were working for or had worked inthe first respondent; (ii) the advertisement calling for applications did notspecify the requirement of experience for the post of Junior LabTechnician, though it was prescribed for other posts; and (iii) For theabove two reasons, providing marks based on experience is arbitrary.EOn the other hand, the appellant urged that (i) the Selection Committeeconsisted of responsible persons who had resolved to grant ten marksfor experience (with preference to those who had earlier worked ingovernment institutions) and 5 marks for the interview; and (iii) the Courtmust not sit in appeal and interfere with the decision of the SelectionCommittee.F

8. The Division Bench allowed the appeal and quashed theselection of the appellant and directed the first respondent to considerthe case of the third respondent for appointment to the post of JuniorLab Technician within two months. The Division Bench held that:

(i) The Court cannot sit in appeal over the work of the SelectionGCommittee, unless allegations of bias are established;

(ii) Bye-law No. 10 states that relaxation of age and otherconditions can be made during the process of selection atthe discretion of the appointing authority in order to utilizethe best talent and experience. However, the advertisementHdid not make any reference to the applicability of the Bye- SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA v. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICALSCIENCES & ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

law 10 but only indicated that the selected candidate will begoverned by the bye-laws of the first respondent; A

(iii) The bye-law is vague and has not prescribed any guidelinesfor the exercise of discretion by the Selection Committee;

(iv) The Selection Committee evolved the criteria after theadvertisement was issued and when the selection processBhad begun;

(v) Most of the selected candidates were given high marks of9 or 9.5 in the experience category and 4.5 marks in thepersonal interview category.The marks were givenarbitrarily under the head of experience : one candidatewho only had four months’ experience was given two marksfor experience, while other candidates who had experienceexceeding four months, were given one mark forexperience; C

(vi) No explanation has been furnished for dividing the marksin the ratio of 85:10:5.The absence of any criteria for theallotment of discretionary marks leads to an inference ofbias and mala fides; and D

(vii) The bifurcation of marks for experience and personalityafter the publication of the advertisement amounted tochanging the rules of game after the process had begun.

E

9. The appellant moved this Court in a Special Leave Petition.This Court issued notice by an order dated 20 July 2012 and stayed theoperation of the judgment of the Division Bench. The appellant whowas appointed in 2009 has continued in the post for eleven years.

F

10. Mr SN Bhat, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant hassought to challenge the judgment of the Division Bench of the HighCourt has urged the following grounds :

(i) The marks allotted to the appellant under theheads ofexperience and interview are not arbitrary. The appellantGhad an experience of one year in a private institute and anexperience of three years and one month in a governmentmedical institution as on the date of the application. On theother hand, the third respondent had an experience of onlysix months working under a doctor in private practice atthe relevant time;H

H

1152SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A(ii)Though the advertisement did not prescribe experience asa minimum qualification, there is a difference betweenprescribing a minimum qualification and providing guidelinesfor identification of suitability of a candidate from the selectedpool. The Selection Committee has the power to evolvecriteria for determining the suitability of candidates amongBthose who fulfil the minimum criteria mentioned in theadvertisement;

(iii) The Selection Committee resolved to segregate the workexperience into government and private sectors and decidedto give more weightage to those who have work experienceCin the government sector. The committee was of the opinionthat candidates who have worked in a governmentalinstitution would be more suitable for the post in the firstrespondent since they would be familiar of the modalitiesof work. Thus, the marks allotted by the Selection CommitteeDwere guided by a sound rationale;

(iv) The third respondent has not challenged the entire selectionlist but only the selection of the appellant. Thus, the Courtcould not have referred to the alleged irregularities in themarks provided to candidatesin other categories to imputeEmala fides; and

(v) The selection list was challenged before the Karnataka HighCourt in Nagaraj v. Karnataka Institute of MedicalSciences[3]. The writ petition was dismissed by the SingleJudge and there was no appeal against the order. Since theorder of the Single Judge has attained finality, the respondentFcannot now raise arguments on the alleged arbitrariness ofthe selection list.

11. Mr Devadatt Kamal, counsel appearing on behalf of the thirdrespondent has urged the following submissions:

(i) The advertisement calling for applications to the post of aG‘Junior Lab Technician’ does not prescribe an experiencecriterion;

(ii) The Selection Committee has uniformly given all the selectedcandidates, 9.5 marks for experience and 4.5 marks for the

H3 WP Nos. 62758-62760/2009

interview. Candidates who have not been selected wereuniformly given one mark each for experience and at theinterview;

(iii) The rules of the game have been changed after the selectionprocess had set in; and

(iv) The merit listshows that the Selection Committeearbitrarilyawarded marks for experience. For instance, a candidatehaving four months’ experience in a private institution wasgiven two marks while a person having more than a year ofexperience in a private institute was only given one mark.

12. The rival submissions fall for consideration.

13. A preliminary observation needs to be made at this stage ofthe analysis. The third respondent did not challenge the entire selectionlist dated 20 April 2009. He challenged the appellant’s selection andsought a direction for his appointment in place of the appellant. The thirdrespondent did not challenge the entire selection since he and the appellanthad applied under the same category, namely Category 1 – OBC. Thebasis of the claim of the third respondent to the post was that since hehad secured higher marks as compared to the appellant in the qualifyingexamination in the Lab Technician’s course, he ought to have beenselected for the post. The Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitionnoted the submission of the third respondentthus:

“2. […] It is the petitioner’s grievance that his name appearedat Serial No.213, wherein the percentage of marks obtained bythe petitioner is shown at 76.28%, whereas the name of respondentno.3, who had actually been selected for the post of JuniorLaboratory Technician, had appeared at Serial No.170 and thepercentage of marks of respondent no.3 was shown as 66.77%.In spite of this, it is the petitioner’s grievance that respondent no.3had been appointed apparently on the basis of the marks obtainedat the interview and it is the petitioner’s suspicion that the markswere granted in favour of respondent no.3 at the interviewnotwithstanding; that he was less meritorious than the petitionerand it is on this ground that the present petition is filed seeking toquestion the appointment of respondent no.3 and rejection of hisapplication.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AIt was in the writ appeal that the third respondent challenged theselection criteria of allotting marks for experience and the interview. Itwas argued before the Division Bench that the advertisement had onlymentioned the requirement of a minimum educational qualification andthat since it did not stipulate a requirement of experience, the selectionbased on marks provided for experience was arbitrary since the rules ofBthe game were changed after the selection process had commenced.

A

14. The selection list for the post of ‘Junior Lab Technician’ waschallenged before the High Court in another proceeding - Nagaraj (supra)- but the writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge. In Nagaraj,the casual labourers working in the first respondentchallenged theCselection list for the post of ‘Junior Lab Technician’ on the ground thatthey ought to have been regularised and appointed to the post. It wasalso contended that the selection process adopted by the first respondentwas not transparent. The Single Judge rejected the submission and heldthat the Selection Committee had selected candidates to the post inDaccordance with the Bye laws and the guidelines devised by the SelectionCommittee. The High Court held :

“8. After careful perusal of the stand taken by the respondentsspecifically with reference to Annexure R1, authorities havefollowed the procedure and mode of selection as per termsEand conditions notified in By-laws of the firstrespondent.Selection Committee consists of experts in therelevant field having rich knowledge are well acquainted with theprocedures for selection category wise. Taking intoconsideration the marks secured by the candidate in theexamination, performance, experience certificate,Fcertificate issued by the concerned authorised officerregarding their experience, practical knowledge of workin the lab, all the candidates herein are selected on meritbasis having regard to their better marks, betterexperience. […] Taking into consideration all these relevantGaspects and due to efflux of time, the prayer sought by thepetitioners, may not survive for consideration and interference bythis Court is not called for, nor I find any good ground to interferein these writ petitions. Hence, all these petitions are dismissed asbeing devoid of merits.”

G

(emphasis supplied)

H

Since the order of the Single Judge in Nagaraj has not beenappealed, it has attained finality and thus the marks allotted to candidatesin other categories cannot be scrutinised to cast doubt on the selection inCategory 1.

15. Before proceeding to refer to the marks allotted to the thirdrespondent and the appellant by the Selection Committeefor experienceand at the interview, we find it necessary to refer to the criteria forallocation of marks devised by the Selection Committee. The Minutes ofthe Meeting of the Selection Committeeheld on 20 August 2008 statethat the committee resolved to give proportionate weightage to the lengthof the service,with special preference to those candidates who haveworked in government medical colleges. For the selection to the post ofa ‘Junior Lab Technician’, the marks obtained in the qualifying examinationwere assigned a weightage of eighty-five percent. Ten marks were allottedto experience. Five marks were allotted for the personality of thecandidate, as adjudged in the interview. The Selection Committee laiddown two yardsticks for provision of marks for experience: (a) length ofwork experience of the candidate; and (b) preference would be given tothose who had worked in teaching hospitals of government/ autonomousmedical colleges.The rationale of the Selection Committee ondifferentiating between work experience in a private and governmentinstitute was that those who had worked in a government institute wouldbemore suitable for the post due to the similarity of working conditionsowing to the fact thatthe first respondent is a government medicalinstitution.

16. It is in this background that we need to determine whether themarks allotted to the appellant in the category of experience andpersonality are arbitrary. The appellant at the time of submitting theapplication had a one year work experience in Babuji Medical College,Devanagere (a private institution) and three years of work experiencewith the first respondent. On the other hand, the respondent at the timeof the application, had six months’ experience of working under a doctorwho was undertaking private practice. Not only did the appellant havemore years of work experience, he had work experience in a governmentalinstitution. Hence, the marks awarded to the third respondent and theappellant bore a nexus to the yardstick determined by the SelectionCommittee. It is not the case of the third respondent that the appellantwas given more marks for experience despite having less workexperience. On a comparison of the marks allotted to both the candidates A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Awith reference to the yardstick determined by the Selection Committee,no mala fides could be imputed to the Selection Committee. Nor is therean obvious or glaring error or perversity. The Court does not sit in appealover the decision of the Selection Committee.

17. During the course of his submissions, counsel for the thirdBrespondent referred to the judgments of this Court in K Manjusree v.State of Andhra Pradesh[4 ]and Bishnu Biswas v. Union of India[5]. InK Manjusree, in issue was the selection of candidates to ten posts ofDistrict and Sessions Judge (Grade II) in the Andhra Pradesh StateHigher Judicial Service. The first merit list was prepared by cumulatingthe marks obtained in the written examinationout of hundred and theCinterview marks out of twenty five. However, when the merit list wasplaced before the committee, the list was sent back for reconsiderationon the ground that the marks for the written test were to be converted toeighty five. Further, the committee also introduced a minimum markqualification for the interview. Therefore, the ratio of written (examination)

Dand oral (interview) marks was changed from 4:1 to 3:1 and an additionalrequirement of minimum marks for the interview was introduced. Thiswas challenged by candidates who were in the first merit list but wereleft out in the second merit list. The change in the ratio of marks from4:1 to 3:1 was upheld by this Court on the ground that the resolution of the committee was misinterpreted while publishing the first merit listEbased on the 4:1 ratio. However, the Court held that the prescription ofminimum marks for interview was illegal since such an additionalrequirement was prescribed after the commencement of the selectionprocess. In this regard, Justice Raveendran writing for a three judgeBench observed:F“ 33. […] We have no doubt that the authority making rulesregulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marksboth for the written examination and interviews, or prescribeminimum marks for written exam but not for the interview[…].But if the Selection Committee wants to prescribe minimum marks, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. IfGthe Selection Committee prescribed minimum marks only for thewritten examination, before the commencement of selectionprocess, it cannot either during the selection process or after theselection process, add an additional requirement.[…].”

4 (2008) 3 SCC 512H5 (2014) 5 SCC 774

18. In Bishnu Biswas (supra), the rules had provided thatcandidates for eight Group D posts would be selected based on thewritten exam of fifty marks. However, after the written exam was held,a press notice was issued calling successful candidates for an interviewfor which fifty marks were allotted. Referring to various judgments ofthis Court including Manjusree (supra), the selection list was quashedon the ground that the rules of the game (by including the interviewcomponent) had changed after the selection process was initiated.

19. As we have noted earlier, the respondent had not challengedthe selection list or the inclusion of the experience and the interviewcomponent for the determination of the merit list in the Writ Petition buthad only sought his appointment within the criteria prescribed. Hence,the reliance placed by the respondent on Bishnu Biswas and Manjusreewould not aid the case of the third respondent.

20. The Division Bench of the High Courtset aside the appointmentof the appellant on two grounds. First, the marks provided for candidatesat the interview and for experience category were held to be arbitrary.To arrive at this conclusion, the Division Bench referred to the entireselect list and found alleged discrepancies in the allotment of the marksfor experience and a pattern where all the selected candidates weregiven higher marks for experience and at the interview. Second, theDivision Bench held that the advertisement issued by the first respondentdid not mention the criterion of work experience butonly provided theminimum educational qualifications. Thus, it held that the rules of thegame werechanged after the process had started.The appointment ofthe appellant was set aside by the Division Bench by finding that theadditional selection criteria devised and the marks provided in those criteriawere arbitrary. As observed earlier, the selection list was not challengedby the respondent. His only ground for challenge was that he had to beselected since he was ‘more meritorious’ as he had better qualifyingmarks. Therefore, determining the legality of the selection list and perusingthe entire selection list to determine whether the selection of the appellantwas arbitrary was erroneous as the Division Bench transgressed thelimits of challenge in the writ petition.

21. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside theimpugned judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 31March 2017.

22. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H