HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI AND ORS.versusDINESH KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS. ETC.

                     (2015] 6 S.C.R. 825


           HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI AND ORS.                           A
                               v.
        DIN ESH KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS. ETC.

               (Civil Appeal No.6549 of2014)
                                                                   B
                        MAY11,2015
[RANJAN GOGOi AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]
     Service Law - Promotion - Of Constables ~nd Head
Constables - To the post of Su!J-lnspectors - Process of           C
promotion challenged by unsuccessful candidates - 3ingle
Judge of High Court allowed the writ petition on the grounds
that there was substantial departure from Police Regulations,
that number of candidates called for interview was much
higher than the required four times, that sealed cover             D
procedure was not followed and that members of Interview
Committee did not give separate marks individually -
Division Bench of High Court reversed the order of Single
Judge - On appeal, held: lnterferymce of Court with executive
action is warranted only when 'there are oblique motives or        E
there is miscarriage of Justice - The promotion process in
the present case is not flawed - Moreover, the appellants
having participated in the process of interview, cannot be
permitted to challenge the process after declaration of the        F
result- In the present case, in absence of any oblique motive
or miscarriage of Justice, interference is not called for- Uttar
Pradesh Police Regulations, 1976- Regulation 445(8)(4).

    Dismissing the appeals, the Court
                                                                   G
    HELD: 1. The procedure for selection of
departmental candidates for the promotion to the rank
of Sub-inspectors was changed and was amended by

                             825                                   H
826        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2015) 6 S.C.R.


A every Government Order viz. the Government Order
  dated 23.01.1999 and 22.02.1999. Thus, the prior
  Government Order was impliedly repealed every time the
  new procedure was laid down. Regulation 445(8) (4) of
  Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, 1976 and clause 8 of
B the Government Order dated 27.02.1999 provide different
  requirement for being called for the interview. Clause 8
  of Government order did not provide the qualification
  but only eligibility for a candidate to come in the list of
  interview. Clause 8 of the rule makes it mandatory to call
C for interview, all those who secure 40% marks separately
  in each subject and 50% marks aggregate in the written
  examination. If both the above quoted rules were to exist,
  it would create a contradictory situation. Therefore,
  Regulation 445 cannot be said to prevail over or co-exist
0
  with the Government Order dated 27 .02.1999, in respect
  of the number of candidates to be called for interview.
  [Para 14) [837-B, E, F-H] [838-A-C]

          State of Rjasthan and Ors. Vs. Basant Agrotech (India)
E     Limited (2013) 15 SCC 1 - referred to.

      2. Regulation 445 of the Regulations of UP
  Government (as amended upto 31.08.1977) which
  provides for qualifications and procedure for promotion
F from rank of Constable and Head Constables to Sub
  Inspectors, are actually a compilation of Government
  Orders issued from time to time. Therefore, the
  Regulations are not a superior law as compared to the
  Government Orders and it may be amiss to suggest that
G Regulations would prevail over the Government Orders
  by virtue of being called Regulations. [Para 10) [835-B-
  E]
      3. Furthermore, there is no rule of law as to the ratio
  of number of vacancies to the number of candidates for
H
  being called for interview; although it may be a rule of
 HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI v. DINESH KUMAR PANDEY 827


prudence. Although it may be improper for the Selection A
Committee to call such large number of candidates for
interview, but selection cannot be vitiated merely on this
ground if such an action is not tainted by ma/a fide or
oblique motive. Moreover, the appellants have not
presented a case that had they been called for interview, B
being only four times the number of vacancies, they
would have been short listed in that list. [Para 15] [838-
D-G]

    Mohinder Sain Garg Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (1991) C
1SCC662: 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 108;Ashok KumarYadav
Vs. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417: 1985 (1) Suppl.
SCR 657 -relied on.

     4. The process of sealed cover procedure was o
devised to prevent any prejudice being caused to the
persons against whom the disciplinary or criminal
proceedings are pending. In the present case, it is
nobody's case that such persons are prejudiced. [Para
17] [839-D, E]                                        E

     5. The purpose of constituting multi member
interview panel is to remove the arbitrariness and ensure
objectivity. It is required by each member of the interview
panel to apply his/her own mind in giving marks to the F
candidates. The best evidence of independent
application of mind by each panelist is that they awarded
separate marks. However, only because the panelists on
the interview committee did not award separate marks,
cannot be a ground to quash the entire process. Also, G
the Government Order dated 03.02.1999 which provided
that the marks must be separately awarded by interview
panelists, was in continuation of the Government Order
dated 23.01.1999, which was superseded expressly by
Government Order dated 27.02.1999. The Government H
828         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2015] 6 S.C.R.


A Order dated 27.02.1999 did not provide any condition
  that the marks were to be separately awarded by each
  interview panelist. Thus, it cannot be said that the
  Government did not follow the rules framed by itself.
  [Para 18] [839-G-H; 840-C-E]
B
      Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1981) 4 SCC
  159: 1982 (1) SCR 320- relied on.

          6. It is a settled law that in cases like the present one,
c where an Executive action of the State is challenged,
      Court must tread with caution and not overstep its limits.
      The interference by Court is warranted only when there
      are oblique motives or there is miscarriage of justice. In
      the present case, there is no oblique motive or any
o     miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this
      Court. [Para 19] [840-F-G]

      7. The appellants had participated in the process of
  intervi.~w and not challenged it till the results were
E declaMd. There was a gap of almost four months
  between the int::rview and declaration of result.
  However, the appe11ants did not challenge it at that time.
  Thus, it appears thai only when the appellants found
  themselves to be um:uccessful, they challenged the
F interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates
  cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either
  the candidates should not have participated in the
  interview and challenged the procedure or ther should
  have challenged immediately after the interviews were
G conducted. [Para 16] [839-A-C]

      Vijendra Kumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission,
  Uttarakhand and Ors. (2011) 1 sec 150: 2010 (12) SCR
  944; K.H. Siraz Vs. High Court of Kera/a and Ors. (2006) 6
H SCC 395: 2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 790 - relied on.
 HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI v. DINESH KUMAR PANDEY 829


                  Case Law Reference                       A

  (2013) 15 sec 1           referred to.      Para 14

  1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 108 referred to.        Para 15

  1985 (1) Suppl. SCR 657 relied on.         Para 15       B

  2010 (12) SCR 944         relied on.       Para 16

  2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 790 relied on.         Para 16

  1982 (1) SCR 320          relied on.       Para 18       c
   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
6549of2014.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2008 of the o
Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 579 of 2007.

                          With

    C. A. Nos. 6550, 6551, 6552, 6553, 6554, 6555 and 6556- E
6561 of 2014, 4327, 4328, 4329, 4330, 4331 and 4332 of
2015, W. P. (C) No. 1057 of2014.

    Nagendra Rai, Gaurav Bhatia,AAG, Kavin Gulati, Pragya
Baghel, Rohit Sthalekar, Avi Tandon, Jayant Mehta, Prashant F
Shukla, Prashant Chaudhary, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Mohd.
Parvez Dabas, Uzmi Jameel Husain, Mir lmtiyaz, Smarhar
Singh, Shantanu Sagar, Aakash Kumar, P_rerna Singh, T.
Mahipal, Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Pawan Kumar Shukla, K. L.
Janjani, Mukesh Verma, Yash Pal Dhingra, Mayuri G
Raghuvanshi, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari,
Vishwa Pal Singh, Pramod Swarup, Praveen Swarup, Sushma
Verma, Suresh Kumar, Viresh Kumar Yadav, M. M. Singh,
Rameshwar Prasad. Goyal, Abhinav Malik, Vibhu Tiwari, H
830        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015) 6 S.C.R.


A Gaurav Shrivastava, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Jatinder Kumar
  Bhatia, Ajay Kumar Singh, Digendra Sharma, Dr. Monika
  Gusain, Hariom Yaduvanshi, Abhinav Jain, Mohd. Muztaba,
  Pramod K. Tewari, Anupam Dwivedi, Aseem Chandra, T. M.
  Singh, Prachi Bajpai, Satish Pandey, Man Mohan Sharma,
B Prabhat Kumar Rai, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, S. G. Hasnain,
  Sangeeta Kumar, Vithika Garg, Dinesh Kr. Tiwary, Shailendra
  Kumar Mishra, Chandan Kr., Jaya Kumari, Rajat Sharma,
  Rajesh Chandra Tiwari, Raghvendra Tiwari, Anilendra Pandey,
  N. N. Jha, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Dr. Kailash Chand, Santosh
C Kumar Tripathi, Varun Sarin, Ashok Mathur, Anuvrat Sharma,
  Deepak Goel, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Jitendra Mohan
  Sharma, Roh it Singh, Manoj K. Mishra, Shekhar Kumar, S. R.
  Setia, Tayenjam Momo Singh, lndu Sharma, Mridula Ray
D Bhardwaj, Pratibha Jain, Kamlendra Mishra, Vijay Kumar,
  Gopal Prasad, Sandhya Goswami, A. N. Bardiyar, Mukul
  Kumar, Dharam Bir Raj Vohra, M.A. Krishna Moorthy, Ramvir
  Singh for the appearing parties.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
          PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J: 1. Leave granted in the
      special leave petitions. I.A. No.52 of 2015 is allowed.

          2. This batch of appeals raises a common controversy
F relating to the promotion of Constables and Head Constables
  to the rank of Sub-Inspectors in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
  The process of promotion started way back in 1999 and has
  since embroiled in litigation. Basically, the candidates
  appearing for promotion from the rank of Constable or Head
G Constable to the rank of Sub-Inspector have challenged the
  selection and promotion process at various stages of the
  promotion process.

      3. The facts necessary for disposal of this case are that
H the Government of Uttar Pradesh took a decision on
 HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI v. DINESH KUMAR PANDEY 831
          [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J]

23.01.1999 for recruitment of departmental candidates to the A
posts of Sub-inspectors in the State, both by direct recruitment
and by promotion of Constables and head Constables. In
continuation of the order dated 23.01.1999, another
Government Order was issued on 3.02.1999, according to
which all the vacancies of Sub-inspectors till 31.12.1999 were B
to be filled up. On 27.02.1999, the Government of Uttar
Pradesh issued another Order which superseded the earlier
Order dated 23.01.1999. The 27.02.1999 order provided a
complete pattern of the examination and process of selection
and promotion. As p·erthe new pattern the promotion process C
was to be conducted in three steps: (1) The preliminary written
examination and infantry tesUphysical test; (2) Main written
Examination; and (3) Interview. Candidates who qualified the
preliminary examination and IT/PTwere eligible to appear in D
the main written examination.

    4. As per the existing rules in 1999, 50% of total vacancies
were to be filled up by promotion of persons serving as
 Constables and Head Constables and the remaining 50%
 vacancies were to be filled up by direct recruitment. It appears E
 that at the time the selection process began, there were 2956
vacancies of the rank of Sub-inspectors in the State. So initially
the number of vacancies for promotees quota were 1478.
 However, It appears that vide order dated 10.01.2000, another F
 86 posts were added to the promotees quota to be filled up by
the departmental examination in pursuance of the direction
made by State Backward Classes Commission, to maintain
the ratio of promotees and direct recruits at the rate of 50%.
Thus, the number of vacancies for promotees quota became G
1564. It is to be noted that pursuant to the Division Bench
judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal
No.1372of1999: State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ranbir Singh,
the Government of Uttar Pradesh created another class of
promotees which consisted of 385 Head Constables who were H
832         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015) 6 S.C.R.


A     to be promoted directly by virtue of the length of their service
      without undergoing the selection process. The creation of this
      class is not contended before us and that controversy is settled
      by prior litigation. Thus, eventually it appears that total
      vacancies for people who were to be promoted after the
B     selection process was 1176.

       5. The preliminary test was held on 05.09.1999 and the
  result was announced on 05.11.1999 and those who qualified
  the preliminary test were permitted to appear in IT/PT which
C was held in December 1999. The result of IT/PT test was
  declared on 11.02.2000, which was challenged before the High
  Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No.9694/2000: Triloki Nath
  Pandey and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, and the
  entire process was stayed till the conclusion of litigation. Thus,
D at the end of that round of litigation the State of Uttar Pradesh
  was directed to go ahead with the selection procedure.
  Government Notification for the main written examination was
  issued on 9.12.2004 and the main written examination was
  conducted on 25.12.2005. Result of the main written test was
E declared on 24.01.2006 and pursuant thereto, 9671
  candidates were called for interview. The interviews were held
  at four centres between 15.05.2006 to 20.07.2006. The results
  of the interviews were made available on 11.11.2006.

F      6. It was after the declaration of the result of interview that
  the present round of litigation began, whereby the unsuccessful
  candidates challenged the interview process on several
  grounds. Initially the writ petition was filed before the Allahabad
  High Court, Lucknow Bench, which allowed the petition and
G directed the State to conduct fresh interview for the 1176
  vacancies of the rank of Sub-Inspectors. The Division Bench
  of the Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal filed by the
  State Government, thus, reversing the judgment of the learned
H Single Judge. The Division Bench directed the State to appoint
 HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI v. DIN ESH KUMAR PANDEY 833
          [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J]

the candidates who were selected after the interview already A
held, for the rank of Sub-Inspectors.

         7. The learned Single Judge decision weighed on the
following points:
                                                                        B
 (i)       There was substantial departure from the Police
            Regulations as amended upto 1977 in the entire
           process of selection and promotion.

 (ii)      The number of candidates called for interview was much
            higher than the required four times the number of C
            vacancies available. The four time the vacancies rule
           is found in paragraph 445 of Uttar Pradesh Police
           Regulations, 1976.

           The sealed cover procedure was not followed forthe           D
           candidates against whom any disciplinary or criminal
           proceedings are pending. The names of such persons
           were also displayed on the tentative list of selected
           candidates.
                                                                        E
 (iii)     The members of the Interview committee who conducted
           the interviews did not give separate marks individually
            but a single collective marking for each candidate was
            done by the committee.
                                                                        F
           The names of the persons who are already dead or
           are under training in some other Wing of Police
           Department like PAC, were also included in the
           tentative list of selected candidates after the interview.
                                                                        G
     8. The Division Bench found that the learned Single Judge
had made findings on three basic points. The Division Bench
upturned those three findings and reversed the judgment on
following grounds:
                                                                        H
834           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2015] 6 S.C.R.


A     (i)     The Division Bench found that the rule of number of
               candidates being called for interview be not more than
              four times the number of vacancies was found in 1977
               UP Police Regulations and same was superseded by
              the Government Order of 27.02.1999. The 27.02.1999
B             order provided that all candidates securing 50% marks
               in main written exam shall be called for the interview.

      (ii)    It further held that once the candidates had participated
               in the process of selection without raising objections;
c              they could not be allowed to challenge the process at
               a later stage.

      (iii)   With respect to sealed cover procedure, the Division
              Bench noted that this procedure was a requirement
D             under the order dated 23.01.1999 but not under order
              dated 27.02.1999. Since the latter specifically
              superseded the former order, the sealed cover
              procedure was not requirement as such.

E     (iv)    The Division Bench, with respect to composite marking
               in the interview, found that it is for the examining body
              to decide as to how marking should be done. Separate
               marking or consolidated marking are two methods of
               assessment and it is for the examining body to decide,
F              not the Court, which method is preferable.

      (v)     Division Bench further refused to accept the argument
              that the later government order of 27.02.1999 was not
              to govern the selection for vacancies which were
G             announced by order dated 23.01.1999 and
              03.02.1999. It found that this was a mischievous
              argument and very clearly the procedure set out under
              order dated 27.02.1999 was followed throughout the
              selection process.
H
 HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI v. DINESH KUMAR PANDEY 835
          [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J]

     9. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the A
parties. We find that the Division Bench of the High Court was
very lucid and correct in its findings and conclusion reached
thereupon. Neverthelt::ss, we will discuss all the points raised
before us and give our findings.
                                                                  B
     10. Regulation 445 of the said Regulations of UP
 Government (as amended upto 31.08.1977) provides for
 qualifications and procedure for promotion from rank of
 Constable and Head Constables to Sub Inspectors. The
 procedure therein consists of Notice, pre-examination (essay C
 type written exam), examination of character roll, main written
.examination and finally interview. The Regulation provides that
 the number of candidates called for interview, on the basis of
 the merit of the main written examination, shall be four times
 the number of vacancies. In the interview, 40% marks are to D
 be allocated to the service record. It has been submitted and
 clarified to us that these regulations are actually a compilation
 of Government Orders issued from time to time. Therefore,
 we find that the Regulations are not a superior law as
 compared to the Government Orders and it may be amiss to E
 suggest that Regulations would prevail over the Government
 Orders by virtue of being called Regulations. Having said that,
 we go on to examine the Government Orders issued by the
 UP Government in 1999.
                                                                   F
       11. Government Order dated 23.01.1999 is worded as
 "His Excellency the Governor hereby orders to adopt the
 following procedures for selection of departmental candidates
 as Sub Inspectors, Civil Police of UP Police." The said Order
 provides for preliminary examination (objective type), main G
 written examination and the personality test (or the interview).
 It provided that the panelists c_onducting personality test must
give marks to each candidate separately and the head of the
 Recruitment Board must aggregate the marks given by all H
836         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A panelist and thereafter the final result would be declared. The
  Order also provided for character roll and service record shall
  also be assessed. The Order was addressed to the Secretary,
  Police/P.A.C. Recruitment Board, Headquarters, Director
  General of U.P. Police and directed the Secretary to make
B arrangements in terms of the procedure set out in the said
  Order.

       12. Then comes the Government Letter dated 03.02.1999,
  addressed to the Secretary, Police/P.A.C. Recruitment Board,
C Headquarters, Director General of U.P. Police. This Order
  directed the Secretary of Recruitment Board to begin the
  Selection procedure for the 1478 seats of the rank of Sub-
  Inspectors in Civil Police. We have already mentioned that the
  number of seats was later reduced to 1176 (for reasons already
D discussed) and there is no controversy on that.

            13. Then comes the Government Order dated 27 .02.1999,
      again addressed to the Secretary, Police/P.A. C. Recruitment
      Board, Headquarters, Director General of U.P. Police. This
E     order very categorically provided that the Order dated
      23.01.1999 is superseded by this Order and it set out a new
      procedure for selection of the departmental candidates. The
      procedure provided by this order included a Preliminary Written
      Examination (objective type), Physical Test and Infantry Test
F     for those who qualify the preliminary examination, main written
      examination and then the interview. It provided that all those
      who secured 40% marks separately in each subject and 50%
      aggregate in the main written examination would be called for
      the interview. Further the Order provided that for the purpose
G     of interview/Personality Test and assessment of character roll/
      service record, a selection panel shall be constituted as per
      the requirement and its members shall be determined keeping
      in mind the reservation policy of the Government. It may be
H     noted that the Order did not say that the interview panel was to
 HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI v. DINESH KUMAR PANDEY 837
          [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J)

be constituted or was to function as per the Regulation 445 A
discussed above. The order also did not mention that the
members of selection panel were to give separate marks for
each candidate.

      14. Now analysing all these government orders and            8
regulations, we find that the procedure for selection of
departmental candidates for the promotion to the rank of Sub-
inspectors was changed and was amended by every
Government Order. Learned counsel appearing for the
 appellants cited the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors.          C
 Vs. Basant Agrotech (India) Limited, (2013) 15 SCC 1,
 contending the scope of delegated legislation vis-a-vis parent
 legislation. However, in the present case, as already
 mentioned, the regulations cannot be said to prevail over the
 Government orders. Thus, the above cited judgment is not          D
 relevant for our purpose, because Regulations are merely
compilation of previous G.Os. Herein, the argument of implied
 repeal has been forwarded. It is contended by the learned
 counsel for the State that the prior Government Order was
 impliedly repealed every time the new procedure was laid          E
down. To examine this argument, it will be expedient to set out
the relevant clauses from Regulation 445 and the Government
Order dated 27.02.1999. Regulation 445(8)(4) reads as
follows: "About 4 time candidates to the number of vacancies,      F
in the marker cadet should be called for interview according
to the merit from the aforesaid list." The 'aforesaid list'
mentioned in Regulation 445(8)(4) refers to the merit list of
the main written examination. Clause 8 in the Government Order
dated 27 .02.1999 reads: "The candidates securing 40% marks        G
separately in each subject and an aggregate 50% in all subjects
of main written examination shall be called for interview." On a
plain reading of the above two provisions the. conflict is
apparent. Both these provisions provide different requirement
for being called for the interview. It was argued that Clause 8    H
838          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A of Government order did not provide the qualification but only
  eligibility for a candidate to come in the list of interview.
  However, this contention cannot hold good since the word used
  in Clause 8 is "shall". The rule makes it mandatory to call all
  those who secure 40% marks separately in each subject and
B 50% marks aggregate in the written examination to be called
  for the interview. If both the above quoted rules were to exist, it
  would create a contradictory situation. Therefore, we find that
  Regulation 445 cannot be said to prevail over or co-exist with
C the Government Order dated 27 .02.1999, in respect of the
  number of candidates to be called for interview.

            15. Furthermore, we find thatthere is no rule of Jaw as to
      the ratio of number of vacancies to the number of candidates
      for being called for interview; although it may be a rule of
D     prudence. This Court has found in Mohinder Sain Garg Vs.
      State of Punjab and Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 662, as also in
      Ashok KumarYadav Vs. State ofHaryana, (1985) 4 SCC
      417, that although it may be improper for the Selection
      Committee to call such large number of candidates for
E     interview, but selection cannot be vitiated merely on this ground
      if such an action is not tainted by mala fide or oblique motive.
      In Mohinder Sain Garg (supra}, this Court gave one more
      reason not to accept this argument which squarely applies to
F     this case as well; this Court found that the Respondents stood
      no chance of being called for interview if candidates upto three
      times the number of posts were called for interview. In the case
      on hand, on this score, learned counsel for the State of Uttar
      Pradesh has made a similar contention. Even the appellants
G     herein have not presented a case that had they been called
      for interview, being only four times the number of vacancies,
      they would have been short listed in that list. Thus, we find this
      argument as a misplaced one.

          16. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench
H
 HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI v. DINESH KUMAR PANDEY 839
          [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J]

on one more point that the appellants had participated in the A
process of interview and not challenged it till the results were
declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the
interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants
did not challenge it at that time. Thus, it appears that only when
the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they B
challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The
candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time.
Either the candidates should not have participated in the
interview and challenged the procedure or they should have
challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted. C
(See Vijendra Kumar Verma Vs. Public Service
 Commission, Uttarakhand and Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 150,
and K.H. Siraz Vs. High Court of Kera/a and Ors. (2006) 6
sec 395)                                                           D
     17. Further, in our view, the Division Bench has correctly
dealt with the issue of sealed cover procedure. The process
of sealed cover procedure was devised to prevent any
prejudice being caused to the persons against whom the
disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending. In the present E
case, it is nobody's case that such persons are prejudiced.
Therefore, this contention does not hold any merit in the present
case.

     18. Now, so far as the question of awarding consolidated F
marks by all the panelists in the interview is concerned, we
are in agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge.
The purpose of constituting multi member interview panel is to
remove the arbitrariness and ensure objectivity. It is required
by each member of the interview panel to apply his/her own G
mind in giving marks to the candidates. The best evidence of
independent application of mind by each panelist is that they
awarded separate marks. However, if only consolidated marks
are awarded at the interview, it becomes questionable, though H
840          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A not conclusive, whethereach panelist applied his/her own mind
  independently. Having said that, we note that this Court
  cautioned in Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.,
  (1981) 4 SCC 159, that it is not for the Courts to re-determine
  the appropriate method of selection unless obvious oblique
B motives are proved in a particular case. Even in Lila Dhar's
  case (supra), the issue was regarding the marks awarded by
  the Selection Committee as one consolidated marks; the Court
  refused to interfere with the appointment process on this
  ground. Only because the panelists on the interview committee
C did not award separate marks, cannot be a ground to quash
  the entire process. Also, with respect to the legal argument
  that the Government Order dated 03.02.1999 provided that
  the marks must be separately awarded by interview panelists,
  we hold that the Government Order dated 3.02.1999 was in
0
  continuation of the Government Order dated 23. 01.1999, which
  was superseded expressly by Government Order dated
  27 .02.1999. The Government Order dated 27.02.1999 did not
  provide any condition that the marks were to be separately
E awarded by each interview panelist. Thus, it cannot be argued
  that the Government did not follow the rules framed by itself.
  19. Further, it is a settled law that in cases like the present
  one, where an Executive action of the State is challenged, Court
F must tread with caution and not overstep its limits. The
  interference by Court is warranted only when there are oblique
  motives or there is miscarriage of justice. In the present case,
  there is no oblique motive or any miscarriage of justice
  warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the appeals and
G the writ petition are dismissed.
      Kalpana K Tripathy                         Appeal dismissed.