Bombay High Court Upholds Introduction of Minimum Benchmark in Recruitment Process for Managing Directors of Cooperative Sugar Factories: “Rules of the Game Were Not Violated”; Change Justified in Larger Public Interest

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petitions challenging the introduction of a new benchmark in the recruitment process for Managing Directors of cooperative sugar factories. The court held that the changes introduced were lawful, reasonable, and aimed at selecting the best talent for a highly responsible role. The introduction of a benchmark did not violate the principles of fairness or prejudice the petitioners.

Facts of the Case:

1. The recruitment process was governed by a Government Resolution (G.R.) dated April 18, 2022, which set out the following stages:
   • Objective Screening Test: A multiple-choice test of 200 marks, requiring candidates to score more than 70 marks to qualify for the next stage.
   • Written Examination/Mains: A subjective test of 75 marks, with candidates shortlisted for interviews based on a 1:3 merit ratio.
   • Oral Interviews: The final stage to determine the top 50 candidates for selection.
2. Timeline of Events:
   • Screening Test: Conducted on April 5, 2023.
   • Circular Dated April 17, 2023: Introduced a new requirement that candidates must score at least 27 out of 75 marks in the written examination to qualify for the interview stage.
   • Written Examination: Held on May 4, 2023.
   • List of Candidates for Interviews: Published on July 18, 2024, with only 74 candidates declared eligible for interviews based on the new benchmark.
3. The petitioners challenged the new benchmark, claiming it was arbitrary and introduced midway through the selection process, violating the “rules of the game.”

Issues:

1. Whether the introduction of a new minimum benchmark during the selection process violated the principle of fairness.
2. Whether the respondents had the authority to impose the new benchmark.
3. Whether the non-disclosure of written examination results was non-transparent and prejudiced the petitioners.

Petitioners’ Arguments:

1. Change of Rules Midway:
   • The G.R. originally provided that candidates for interviews would be shortlisted based on a 1:3 merit ratio from the written examination. The circular introducing the new benchmark violated this by imposing additional criteria after the process had begun.
   • The change in rules was arbitrary and contrary to the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness.
2. Lack of Authority:
   • The G.R. did not empower the respondents to introduce a new benchmark.
   • The circular dated April 17, 2023, was issued without legal sanctity.
3. Non-Transparency:
   • Results of the written examination were not disclosed, depriving the petitioners of the opportunity to verify their scores or challenge the process.
4. Prejudice:
   • The petitioners were excluded from the interview process solely because of the new benchmark, which they claimed to be unjust.

Respondents’ Arguments:

1. Authority to Change Criteria:
   • The G.R. empowered the selection committee to modify eligibility criteria as required. The circular introducing the benchmark was issued by the Project Director under this authority and published well before the written examination.
   • The benchmark ensured that only the most competent candidates progressed to the next stage, considering the critical responsibilities of the Managing Director’s role.
2. Larger Public Interest:
   • The Managing Director’s role involves managing financial transactions of approximately ₹1,000 crore and overseeing significant administrative responsibilities. The benchmark was introduced to ensure the selection of meritorious candidates.
3. Non-Disclosure of Results:
   • Non-disclosure of written examination results ensured impartiality during the interview process. This practice was upheld by the Supreme Court in Pranav Verma v. Registrar General, Punjab and Haryana High Court.
4. No Prejudice:
   • The petitioners did not score the minimum required marks in the objective screening test (70 out of 200 marks) and were therefore ineligible for the subsequent stages, even without the benchmark.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Rules of the Game:
   • The principle of “rules of the game” mandates that selection criteria should not be altered after the process begins unless explicitly permitted by the extant rules or in larger public interest.
   • The court referred to Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, where the Supreme Court held that changes during the process are permissible if the enabling rules allow it or if justified by compelling public interest.
2. Authority to Introduce Benchmark:
   • The court found that the G.R. dated April 18, 2022, empowered the selection committee to modify eligibility criteria. The circular dated April 17, 2023, was validly issued under this authority and published in advance.
3. Transparency and Non-Disclosure:
   • The court upheld the practice of withholding written examination results, citing the Supreme Court’s observation in Pranav Verma that disclosing scores before interviews could lead to bias and favoritism.
4. Public Interest:
   • The court emphasized that introducing the benchmark was aimed at selecting the best talent for a high-stakes role. The change was reasonable, rational, and in larger public interest.
5. Precedent Analysis:
   • The court relied on Yogesh Yadav v. Union of India, which allowed employers to introduce benchmarks during the selection process to maintain high standards of competence, provided such changes are non-arbitrary and transparent.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. The introduction of the benchmark was lawful and within the powers granted by the G.R.
2. The petitioners suffered no prejudice, as they failed to meet even the original criteria (70 out of 200 in the screening test).
3. The change was made in larger public interest to ensure the selection of competent candidates.
4. Non-disclosure of written examination results was a fair and transparent practice to prevent bias.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petitions, upholding the respondents’ decision to introduce the benchmark. The court found that the benchmark was introduced transparently, lawfully, and in larger public interest. Interim relief was vacated, and the selection process was allowed to proceed.

Implications:

1. Employers can introduce benchmarks mid-process if authorized by rules and justified by compelling reasons.
2. Non-disclosure of results is a legitimate measure to ensure impartiality during selection.
3. The judgment reinforces the principle that selection processes must balance fairness with administrative discretion aimed at public interest.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Quashing of FIR Amidst Cross Allegations of Assault and Sexual Harassment, Holds “Existence of a Cross FIR is Not a Sole Ground for Quashing”