Allahabad High Court
Rashmi Kumari vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 17 May, 2023
Author: Saral Srivastava
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:107285 Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8533 of 2023 Petitioner :- Rashmi Kumari Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Prajapati,Rishi Kant Rai Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. Sri Chandra Jeet Singh, Advocate, has filed his vakaltnama on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 today in Court, which is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Jeet Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing the writ petition in respect to first relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed so far as it relates to the prayer no. 1 of the writ petition.
4. Now, the petitioner is pressing the rest of prayer made in the writ petition, which are as under:
" (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the petitioner passed in the written exam of recruitment of Assistant Sub Inspector (EXE) through LDCE for the year 2021 by treating 22 marks as passing marks.
(ii) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction to which the petitioner be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii) To award costs in favour the petitioner."
5. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an advertisement dated 27.12.2021 from being eligible departmental candidates for filling up the vacancies of Assistant Sub Inspector (EXE) through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), petitioner submitted an application for being considered on the said post.
6. The petitioner appeared in the written examination.The written examination is of 200 marks consisting of four parts, and each part is of 50 marks. It is provided in the advertisement that a candidate has to secure 45% marks in each part of the written examination. The petitioner claims that though her aggregate is 58%, but as she could secure only 22% marks in the second part, therefore, she could not be selected.
7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as each question is of one mark, therefore, no candidate can secure 22.5% marks in each section which is equal to 45% marks. Accordingly, it is submitted that 45% cut off marks prescribed by the respondents is arbitrary.
8. Be that as it may, it is the domain of the recruiting agencies to fix cut off marks. Unless and until it is demonstrated that fixation of cut of marks is arbitrary or the said exercise has been done malafidely, the Court cannot interfere with the discretion of the authorities in fixing the cut off marks. If 45% of 50 marks comes to 22.5%, then it is obvious that the petitioner has to secure either 22.5% marks or more than that.
9. As admittedly the petitioner has secured less than 45% marks in the second part of the examination, and has failed to demonstrate that fixation of cut of marks is arbitrary, this Court finds that there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.5.2023 NS