Justice R Devdas suggests no harm with minimum marks in interviews
The High court had suggested that there is no harm in doing away with minimum marks in an interview, as it has become a controversial issue
BENGALURU: The High court had suggested that there is no harm in doing away with minimum marks in an interview, as it has become a controversial issue.
Justice R Devdas made the suggestion by saying that, if no minimum marks are awarded for the interviews, a provision should be made in the clauses so that when the selection committee finds a candidate who is not suitable for the appointment, they shall have the power to mark him/her as ‘failed’ and ‘try again’ if the candidates are too young.
However, the judge had dismissed the petitions that was registered by three advocates Dhanesh Mugali and two others who challenged the final selection list regarding the posts of district judges which was published on December 7, 2015. Because they had less than minimum prescribed marks in the interview.
Justice Devdas had noted that if a committee has awarded less than minimum marks to a candidate in the interview, it would only mean that in the assessment of the panel the candidature of that person cannot be considered.
“The members of the selection committee had the benefit of interviewing the candidates and assessing their performance and personality. This court cannot substitute its view to that of the selection committee as it would be tantamount to belittling the duly considered opinion of the selection committee,” Justice Devdas further observed.
In the year 2015, June 30, the high court had notified to fill 50 vacancies of district judges. Around 2,348 candidates had appeared for the written examination and only 16 of them were successful in the examination, which comprised of civil and criminal law papers.
However, only eight candidates made their mark in the final selection list. As their names were not present on the list, the petitioners approached the court and were told that they were not considered as they had scored less than minimum marks in the interview.
The petitioners argued by suggesting that the authorities should have taken the marks that was obtained by them in the written examination before the final selection list was issued.