Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kimti Lal vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 3 May, 2016
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011
Date of Decision : May 03, 2016
Kimti Lal .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.
* * *
To be referred to Reporters or not ?
Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?
* * *
Present : Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ramandeep Singh, Advocate
for respondents no. 4 to 6, 8, 9 and 11.
* * *
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. :
Through the present petition, the petitioner, who belongs to the BCA Category, seeks quashing of the selection of the private respondents as Junior Engineers (Civil) in PWD (B&R) Department, Haryana. He further seeks the issuance of a direction for appointment to the same post.
A few facts, which require to be noticed for adjudicating upon the present petition, are that through advertisement no. 2/2009, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as - the 1 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:00 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 2 Commission) sought applications for appointment to various posts including 91 posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) in the PWD (B&R) Department, Haryana. Out of these 91 posts, 08 posts were reserved for BCA Category, to which the petitioner and the private respondents belong.
It is the admitted position that the criteria for conducting selections to the posts in question was disclosed by the respondent Commission on 10.03.2009, as per which, the selection was to be based on academic excellence, for which 50 marks were earmarked and viva voce, which was to carry 25 marks - 75 marks in total. As per the afore-referred criteria, on 13.01.2010, interviews took place, in which the petitioner, as also the private respondents, participated, but on the declaration of the results on 29.07.2010, the private respondents were offered appointment, whereas the petitioner, in accordance with his merit, was not. It is in the background of these facts that the petitioner has filed the present petition for the reliefs mentioned earlier.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criteria for selection was not disclosed in the advertisement, which would render the impugned selection to be illegal. Notwithstanding the afore-referred argument, he submitted that 25 out of a total marks of 75 earmarked for interview were excessive, giving impermissible discretion in the hands of the interviewing Board and on that ground alone, the impugned selection was liable to be set aside. It was further submitted that persons having lesser marks in the academic score had been given higher marks in the interview and vice versa and on this ground also, the selection of the private 2 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:00 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 3 respondents was liable to be set aside. According to the learned counsel, respondents no. 4 and 11 had submitted incomplete applications and thus, their candidature was liable to be rejected.
None of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cuts any ice with me. So far as the argument with regard to non-
disclosure of the criteria for selection in the advertisement is concerned, it is the admitted position that as early as on 10.03.2009, the criteria to be followed for making selections was disclosed by the respondent Commission and it was thereafter that the selections took place including interview, which was conducted on 13.01.2010. The petitioner did not challenge the non-disclosure of the criteria in the advertisement, but rather took part in the entire process of selection conducted thereafter without even raising a little finger. It was only when he was declared unsuccessful that he chose to turn around and challenge the selection through the present petition. He would clearly be estopped from doing so by his conduct.
This opinion of mine finds support from a judgment of the Apex Court in Madan Lal vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir - (1995) 3 SCC 486, wherein the Apex Court has held as under :-
"9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being concerned respondents herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Upto this stage there is
3 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:00 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 4 no dis- pute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the concerned Members of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the concerned contesting respondents. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, that they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors., (AIR 1986 SC 1043), it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.
10. Therefore, 'the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in 4 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 5 view that in this petition we cannot sit as a Court of appeal and try to reassess the relevant merits of the concerned candidates who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee."
To the same effect is the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dhananjay Malik and others vs. State of Uttaranchal and others -
(2008) 4 SCC 171, wherein it has been held as under :-
"8. In Madan Lal vs. State of J & K, (1995) 3 SCC 486, this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, only
5 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 6 because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed writ petitions. This Court further pointed out that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the present case, as already pointed out, the writ petitioners- respondents herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done.
9. In a recent judgment in the case of Marripati Nagaraja vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2007) 11 SCR 506 at p.516 SCR this Court has succinctly held that the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur. They did not question the validity of fixing the said date before the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process.
10. We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court could have dismissed the 6 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 7 appeal on this score alone as has been done by the learned Single Judge."
In Vinod Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others - 2006 (4) SLR 237, a Division Bench of this Court, while upholding a similar objection of estoppel, has held as under :-
"5. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and are of the view that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed for more than one reason.
xx xx xx xx Moreover, the petitioner has participated in the selection and having failed he would be estopped by the principle of estoppel to challenge the selection of the private respondents as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal's case (supra). [Emphasis supplied]"
To the same effect is a Single Bench judgment of this Court, in the case of Pankaj Sharma and another vs. Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula and others - C. W. P. 12392 of 2011, decided on 11.05.2015, wherein it has been held as under :-
"It is a matter of record that the petitioners have participated in the selection process and there was a lot of gap in between the submission of applications, date of interview and declaration of the result. In case the petitioners had any grievance qua non-disclosure of the criteria in the advertisement, they could have 7 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 8 challenged the advertisement on the ground available to them. Since the petitioners have participated in the entire selection process, therefore, they are estopped from challenging the same. [Emphasis supplied]"
In Satyender vs. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and others - C.W.P. No. 21025 of 2014, decided on 04.11.2014, this Court has held :-
"Even the submission raised by counsel as regards selection criteria having not been disclosed at the threshold i.e. at the stage of issuance of the advertisement, is without merit. It shall be presumed that the petitioner had read the advertisement dated 14.8.2010 at the stage of submitting his application for the post of Auditor. A grievance, if any, with regard to the criteria having not been disclosed in the advertisement, was required to be agitated on all grounds that may have been available at that stage itself. The petitioner having applied for the post of Auditor in response to the advertisement dated 14.8.2010 and having subjected himself to the process of selection and having remained unsuccessful cannot now be permitted to turn around to raise such a submission."
The same view has been taken by another Single Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others - C. W. P. No. 6485 of 2008, decided on 09.01.2014 as under :-
8 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 9 "Another reason which disentitles the petitioners to the claim as made by them is that the challenge to the criteria at the stage when the selection has proceeded with in which the petitioners have taken a chance and failed. They cannot be permitted to challenge the criteria at this stage as they should have agitated this cause at the initial stage. Having taken a chance, they cannot now be allowed to turn around and lay a challenge to it as they would be estopped to do so."
In view of the above, the petitioner would clearly be estopped by his conduct to lay challenge to the selections sought to be impugned through the present petition.
Even otherwise, there being no statutory provision to the contrary, the Selection Board was well within its rights to frame a criteria for selection but of course, which would be within the parameters of law.
The right of the Selection Board to frame a criteria, in the absence of there being no statutory prescription to the contrary, has been recognised by the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. High Court of Delhi and another - 2010 (3) SCC 104 as under :-
"13. Thus, law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that in case the statutory rules prescribe a particular mode of selection, it has to be given strict adherence accordingly. In case, no procedure is prescribed by the rules and there is no other impediment in law, the competent authority while laying down the norms for 9 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 10 selection may prescribe for the tests and further specify the minimum Bench Marks for written test as well as for viva-voce. [Emphasis supplied]"
In the case of Tarun Rathee vs. State of Haryana and others
- C.W.P. No. 23557 of 2012, decided on 30.11.2012, this Court has held as under :-
"It is now settled by various judicial verdicts that the recruiting agency can evolve its own criteria for selection in the absence of any statutory mandate, limiting such criteria. If the process of selection and the criteria is provided under the statutory Rules, the same cannot be deviated from by the recruiting authority. [Emphasis supplied]"
To the same effect is another judgment of this Court in the case of Pearl Sidhu vs. State of Punjab - 2014 (11) RCR (Civil) 221.
In view of the above, I have no hesitation to hold that as no statutory provision has been brought to my notice, which lays down any criteria contrary to what has been followed by the respondent Commission, as per the afore-referred settled law, the respondent Commission was well within its rights to frame a criteria.
Now, what needs to be considered is whether the criteria so framed and followed while making the impugned selection was within the four corners of law.
The selections have been made on the basis of academic achievements and interview. 50 marks having been earmarked for academic 10 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 11 excellence and 25 for interview.
The allegation of 33% marks for interview being impermissible in law with the remaining marks having been earmarked for academic excellence has been repeatedly considered and negated by this Court in several judgments including a recent judgment rendered by me in a bunch of cases, the lead case in the same being C. W. P. No. 11736 of 2013 -
Jagbir Singh vs. State of Haryana and another, decided on 15.02.2016, wherein I have held as under :-
"The allocation of 33% marks for interview and the remaining for academic excellence have also been upheld by this Court in the case of Jagmal vs. State of Haryana and others - 2007 (1) SLR 177, in which it was held as under :
"8. Having heard the learned counsel at a considerable length and having perused the original record, we are of the considered view that this petition is liable to be dismissed. It is evident that the Commission has adopted a criteria which does not suffer from any violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. In the case of Anzar Ahmad v. State of Bihar, 1994 (1) SCT 483 (SC) : 1994 (1) SCC 150, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in matters concerning selection for employment to a service, 50% marks allocated for viva voce and 50% marks for academic performance could not be said to
11 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 12 have suffered from any arbitrariness warranting interference of the Court. In that regard, reference was made to the observations made in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, 1981(4) SCC 159; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, 1981(1) SCC 722 and Ashok alias Somanna Gowda v.
State of Karnataka, 1992(2) SCT 35 (SC) :
1992(1) SCC 28. The gist of the aforementioned judgments and the principle governing the selection process has been summed up in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985(4) SCC 417, and the following para from the aforementioned judgment has been approved by their Lordships in Anzar Ahmad's case (supra) :-
"...The competitive examination may be based exclusively on written examination or it may be exclusively on interview or it may be a mixture of both. It is entirely for the Government to decide what kind of competitive examination would be appropriate in a given case It is not for the Court to lay down whether interview test should be held at all or how many marks should be allowed for the interview test. Of course the marks must be minimal so as to avoid charge of arbitrariness, but not necessarily always. There may be posts and appointments where the only proper method of selection may be by a viva voce test. .....Now if both written examination and viva voce test are accepted as essential features of proper selection in a given case, the question may arise as to the weight to be attached respectively to them... There cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the precise weight to be given to the viva 12 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 13 voce test as against the written examination. It must vary from service to service according to the requirement of the service, the minimum qualification prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the vice voce test is proposed to be entrusted and a' host of other factors. It is essentially a matter for determination by experts. The Court does not possess the necessary equipment and it would not be right for the Court to pronounce upon it, unless to use the words of Chinnapa Reddy, J. in Lila Dhar case 'exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives'. " (emphasis added) The aforementioned view has been followed and applied in many other judgments including Jaswinder Singh v. State of J&K, 2003(2) SCC 132; Vijay Syal v. State of Punjab, 2003(3) SCT 903 (SC) :
2003(9) SCC 401 and Inder Parkash Gupta v. State of J&K, 2004(2) SCT 680 (SC) : 2004(6) SCC 786."
To the same effect is another judgment of this Court in Pankaj Sharma's case (supra).
From the afore-referred catena of judgments by the Apex Court, as also this Court, there is no room left for doubt that where the selection process does not comprise of a written test followed by interview, the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra) and Mohinder Sain Garg's case (supra) would not apply. It is further clear that where the selection is based on marks allocated for academic excellence and interview, the division of marks in the ratio of 50-50 is well 13 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 14 within the four corners of law. If the prescription of 50% marks for interview, where the selection is based on academic score and interview, is not excessive, then also there is no question of holding 33% marks for interview to be excessive, especially when in the case in hand, no mala fides have even been raised by the petitioner against the Selection Committee or its Members. In fact, neither the Selection Committee nor its Members have even been arrayed as parties. In the absence of even an allegation of mala fide and without impleading the Selection Committee or its Members as parties, the petitioner cannot be allowed to agitate the claim raised by him."
To the same effect is another judgment of this Court rendered in C. W. P. No. 10141 of 2008 - Varun Vir vs. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, decided on 04.03.2010, in which it has been held as under :-
"1. The challenge to a selection to the post of Junior Engineer in the first respondent's Organization is based on two counts namely i) the advertisement did not spell out the selection criteria and ii) when the criteria had been obtained, it was seen that out of 75 marks 25 marks had been assigned for interview and 50 marks had been assigned for academic qualifications. The marks assigned for interview was grossly high and violated the norms set by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2. The first objection that the
14 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 15 advertisement had not set out any selection criteria, is in my view, not tenable. If it transpired ultimately that there had been no criteria at all for selection it could have afforded to the petitioner a ground for challenge. On the other hand, selection criteria had been laid down and the petitioner cannot complain now that they had not been set forth in the advertisement. Further, if he was so aggrieved he ought to have taken up a matter for challenge immediately after the advertisement and before the selection process was undertaken. The said objection therefore cannot be countenanced.
3. As regards the contention that the marks assigned as 25 for viva voce made possible a higher grading for subjective consideration, learned counsel would rely on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia etc. Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others 1980 SLR 467, Ashok Kumar Yadav and others Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 1985 (3) SLR 200 and Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and another Vs. State of Karnatka by its Chief Secy and others reported in 1992 (3) SLR 149. In Ajay Hasia's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case of admission to an educational institution where it found that reserving 50 marks for oral interview as against 100 allowed for written test amounted to a high percentage i.e. 33½% of total marks and hence held to be impermissible. In Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra) the Hon'ble High Court again frowned upon the Punjab Civil Services 15 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 16 Selection which dealt with a situation of a higher grading of 33 ½ %marks for ex-servicemen and 22.2% marks for general category for viva voce test as excessive and arbitrary. In Ashok Kumar alias Somana Gowda's case (supra) the Supreme Court was again dealing with the issue of allotment of 33.3% for interview and held it to be very high.
4. To these submissions the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 9th respondent Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate refers to a judgment of Kiran Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P., and others Vs. State of U.P., and others reported in 2000 (4) RSJ 439 where all the decisions cited to by the learned counsel for the petitioner had been referred. The consideration of the matter obtains in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 of the judgment. They are reproduced hereunder:-
"21. In Shri Janki Prasad Parimoo and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others,1973 (1) SCC 420, the challenge was against selection for the posts of Headmasters made by the Selection Committee on the basis of interview. Constitution Bench of this Court while approving the method of selection by interview, held that when appointment to higher posts were made it might be perfectly legitimate to test the candidate at a properly conducted interview. It was observed that the efficiency of a 16 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 17 teacher and his qualification to be appointed as a Headmaster depended upon several considerations- his character, his teaching experience, ability to manage his class, his popularity with the students and the high percentage of successful students he was able to produce, and that all those matters must be necessarily taken into consideration before making a selection.
22. It is difficult to accept the omnibus contention that selection on the basis of viva voce only is arbitrary and illegal and that since allocation of 15% marks for interview was held to be arbitrary by this Court, Selections solely based on interview is a fortiori illegal. It will be useful to bear in mind that there is no rule of thumb with regard to allotment of percentage of marks for interview. It depends on several factors and the question of permissible percentage of marks for an interview test has to be decided on the facts of each case. However, the decisions of this Court with regard to reasonableness of percentage of marks allotted for interview in cases of admission to educational institutions/schools will not afford a 17 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 18 proper guidance in determining the permissible percentage of marks of interview in cases of selection/appointment to the posts in various services. Even in this class, there may be two categories : i) when the selection is by both a written test and viva voce; and ii) by viva voce alone. The courts have frowned upon prescribing higher percentage of marks for interview when selection is on the basis of both oral interview and a written test. But, where oral interview alone has been the criteria for selection/appointment/promotion to any posts in senior positions the question of higher percentage of marks for interview does not arise. Therefore, we think it an exercise in futility to discuss these cases- Minor A. Peeriakaruppan etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 1971 (1) SCC 38, and Ajay Hasia and others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, 1981 (1) SCC 722- relied upon by Mr. Goswami, which deal with admission to educational institutions/schools and also cases where prescribed method of recruitment was written test followed by interview. Ashok Kumar Yadav and others Vs. State of Haryana and 18 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 19 others, 1993 (4) RSJ 73, 1985 (4) SCC 417; D.V. Bakshi and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1993 (3) SCC 663, Krishna Yadav and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1994 (4) SCC 165.
23. However, it will be apt to refer to the decision of a three Judge Bench of this Court in Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajashan and others, 1981 (4) SCC
159. There, the impugned selection for the posts of District Munsifs under Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules was made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The ratio of marks allocated for written test and interview was 75:25. Speaking for the Court, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy pointed out:
"In the case of admission to a college, for instance, where the candidates personality is yet to develop and it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life, greater weight has per force to be given to performance in the written examination. The importance to be attached to the interview test must be minimal. Therefore, the ratio of the decisions in Minor A. Peeriakaruppan etc. Vs. 19 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 20 State of Tamil Nadu and others, 1971 (1) SCC 38 and Ajay Hasia and others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, 1981 (1) SCC 722, in this regard, cannot be applied in case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview test may be the only way, subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied."
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was setting down the law in Kiran Gupta's case (supra) after consideration of all the decisions as to how in the cases of service to which recruitment had necessarily to be made from the persons of mature personality, interview could be the best method of assessment subject to basic and essential academic qualification and professional requirements being satisfied. In Lila Dhar Vs.State of Rajasthan and others 1981 (4) SCC 159 cited in Kiran Gupta's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was actually dealing with the case where the ratio of the marks for written test to interview was 75: 25. The issue of how much marks would be appropriate for to be assigned for interview shall be seen to be understood in the particular factual context and ability of the interview committee to draft the best talent. It shall not be possible to reject the selection criteria as arbitrary and bad by the only 20 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 21 fact that 25 marks had been assigned out of 75 marks for interview. The challenge to the selection ought to fail and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in the light of decisions cited above, and is accordingly dismissed.
No data has been brought on record to show any kind of arbitrariness in allotting marks for interview. In fact, in the writ petition, where this issue was sought to be pleaded, the columns with regard to marks granted for interview to respondents no. 4, 6, 7, 10 and 11 have been left blank. The same are reproduced as under :-
Sr. Roll No. Category Year of Matric % Year of Diploma/ Experi- Academic Interview Total No. passing passing Degree % ence Marks Marks Marks .2+.3 (50) (75) (75) 00394 BCA 1983 75.11% 1987 67.83% 20 35.37 8 43.37 1 01768 BCA 1985 61.11% 1993 56.43% 15 29.15 2 00014 BCA 1995 58.33% 2003 52.61% 0 27.45 20 47.45 3 01115 BCA 2001 68.00% 2008 63.68% 0 32.70 4 00956 BCA 1982 75.56% 1985 67.60% 0 35.39 5 00769 BCA 1998 71.67% 2002 64.73% 6.75 33.75 14 47.75 6 00860 BCA 2001 61.20% 2006 51.00% 2.5 27.54 19 46.54 7 01746 BCA 1992 64.83% 2007 65.75% 7 32.69 8 01167 BCA 2002 57.00% 2007 66.69% 1.75 31.41 On vague averments, as above, no decision can be rendered in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise, no allegation of mala fide has been raised against the interviewing Board or any of its Members. In fact, neither the Selection Committee nor its Members have been even arrayed as parties before this Court.
In view of the above, on vague averments, the action of the respondents cannot be termed as arbitrary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further averred that 21 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 ::: C. W. P. No. 8767 of 2011 22 respondents no. 4 and 11 had filed incomplete applications, which require their candidature to be rejected. This fact has specifically been denied by both - the State as also respondents no. 4 and 11 by stating therein that the applications of both respondents no. 4 and 11 were complete in all respects.
So far as respondent no. 4 is concerned, he had submitted all documents including a challan form in support of his application and respondent no. 11 had also filed application form complete in all respects. A minor discrepancy in the application form, as per instructions of the Government, was allowed to be corrected before the interview.
In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE May 03, 2016 monika 22 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:12:01 :::