http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: CHOUDHARY GOUTAM KUMAR SARARN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DIRECTOR OF SPORTS AND YOUTHSERVICES ORISSA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/09/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                     O R D E R      This special  leave petition  arises from  the order of the Central  Administrative Tribunal,   Bhubaneshwar  Bench, made on  June 17,  1996 in  QA No.875/94.  Applications were invited for  recruitment to  the post of Senior Auditor. The petitioner who  at the  relevant time  was working on ad hoc also  applied  for  selection  to  the  said  post.  In  the selection,  three  candidates,  viz.,  S.  Sahu  With  Post- Graduation  in   Commerce  Rao   with   graduation   Honours Commerces and  the petitioner  With graduation  in commerce. Sahu secured  in viva   voce 17 marks; minimum qualification would secured 2 marks whereas post-graduation would secure 5 marks out  of the total 24 marks. Rao secured 15-1/2 in viva voce, 2  marks for  graduation, 3  marks for  graduation  in Hononours amounting to total of 20-1/2 marks. The petitioner secured  18   marks  in  viva  voce,  2  marks  in  commerce graduation amount to the total of 20 marks. Thus Sahu having secured highest  marks came  to be  selected. Impugning  the selection, the  petitioner filed  OA in  the  Tribunal.  The Tribunal  rejected  the  same  holding  that  the  procedure adopted was valid in law and no interference is called for.      Shri H.K.  Puri, learned  counsel for  the  petitioner, contended that  Rule 6  of Schedule I to the Orissa Auditors Service Method  of  Recruitment  &  Conditions  of  Service) Rules, 1987 provides that no extra weightage should be given to the marks for academic qualification and that, therefore, the award  of the  marks to Sahu and Rao for post-graduation in Commerce  and Commerce  Hononours is  illegal. We find no force in  the contention.  Clause (6)  of Schedule  I to the abovesaid Rules reads as under:      " 6.  Academic qualification  - The      marks  secured   from  High  School      Certificate examination  to  degree      examination shall  be the basis for      awarding  the  marks  for  academic      qualification. No  weightage  shall      be  given  to  higher  examinations

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    which  the   candidate  might  have      passed. The  marks  obtained  by  a      candidate    in     the    academic      qualification test  shall be  added      to the marks obtained by him in the      test and  the aggregate so obtained      shall determine  his position inter      se  in   the  select   list  to  be      prepared by the Selection Board."      A reading  of it would indicate that the marks  secured from  High  School  Certificate  examination  to      degree examination shall  be the  basis for awarding the  marks for academic qualification.  No weightage  has   been given  for higher examination  which the candidate   might have passed. However,  the  second  clause    indicates  that  the  marks obtained by  a candidate in the  academic qualification test shall be  added to the marks  obtained by him in the written examination as  well as  viva voce test and the aggregate so obtained shall   determine  his inter  se  position  in  the select list to  be prepared by the Selection Board. It would thus be   seen that the second part of the Rules gives power to   the Selection  Board to  award appropriate marks to the academic qualification  without giving  weightage for   post graduation or  Honours graduation  since marks   obtained by such candidates  for those qualification are  to be added to the marks  obtained by  him in  the written   examination as well as  viva voce  test and the aggregate  of all should be the basis to determine inter se  position in the select list to be prepared by the Selection Board.      Thus, we  hold that  the process  for selection  of the candidates adopted by the Selection Board is consistent with clause (6)  of  Schedule  I  to  the  Rules.  The  Tribunal, therefore,  has   not   committed   any   error   warranting interference.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.