Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Neeraj Kant & Anr vs State & Ors on 13 January, 2012
Bench: A. M. Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari
1
DBSAW No.233/2003
Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
:::
JUDGMENT
Neeraj Kant & Anr.
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
:::
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO.233/2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 13.01.2012
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. SAPRE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. M Mridul, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, for
the appellants.
Mr.J.P. Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Joshi, for
the respondents.
<><><>
BY THE COURT: [Per Hon'ble Dinesh Maheshwari,J.]
The petitioners-appellants have preferred this intra-court appeal being aggrieved of the order dated 17.01.2003 as passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2255/1999 whereby the learned Single Judge [as his lordship then was] has dismissed the writ petition while rejecting their contentions against the validity of Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Legal (State and Subordinate) Service Rules, 1981 ['the Rules of 1981'], which 2 DBSAW No.233/2003 Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
provides for minimum pass marks in the interview for selection to the post of Legal Assistant.
As the validity of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1981 is sought to be questioned in this case, appropriate it shall be to take note of the relevant provision at the outset. Rule 23 providing for interview for a personality test with maximum, and minimum qualifying, marks in viva-voce occurs in Part-IV of the Rules of 1981 that have been made for the purpose of regulating the process of recruitment and the conditions of service in Rajasthan Legal (State and Subordinate) Service. Part-IV deals with procedure for direct recruitment to the post of Legal Assistant that is filled up 100% by direct recruitment. It may be noticed that in the Scheme of Rules, all other higher posts like Head Legal Assistant, Assistant Legal Remembrancer and so on are filled up 100% by promotion. While the preceding rules in Part-IV provide for method of conducting written examination, Rule 23 provides for viva-voce after a candidate securing minimum qualifying marks in the written examination. The relevant part of Rule 23 reads as under:-
"23. Viva-voce:- Candidates who obtained such minimum qualifying marks in the written examination as may be fixed by the Commission in their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview for a personality test which shall carry "20" marks. The Commission may in its discretion award grace marks up to one in each paper and up to three in the aggregate. The Commission may fix minimum qualifying marks in the written examination for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes candidates 3 DBSAW No.233/2003 Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
lower than what is prescribed for other candidates. The minimum qualifying marks in Viva-Voce shall be 35% for candidates other than those belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes it shall be 25%. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the written test by each candidate."
Now, the relevant facts and background aspects of the present matter could be briefly noticed as follows: The Rajasthan Public Service Commission advertised 19 posts of Legal Assistant while stating that the number of vacancies could be increased or decreased. Ultimately, the number of vacancies was increased to 61. In the written test held for the selections, the appellant No. 1 Neeraj Kant secured 81 marks whereas the appellant No. 2 Balvinder Singh secured 82 marks out of 150. The appellants were thereafter called for interview for the personality test carrying 20 marks; and the minimum qualifying marks in such interview were fixed at 7 [35% of the maximum marks], as per the requirements of Rule 23 ibid. Each of appellant got 6 marks in the interview and hence, both of them were declared unsuccessful.
Aggrieved with the result aforesaid, the appellants filed the writ petition wherefrom has arisen this intra-court appeal. The appellants contented before the learned Single Judge of this Court that despite securing much higher marks in the written test than the marks secured by the selected candidates, they were denied the selection only on the ground of securing one mark less than the minimum in the interview. 4 DBSAW No.233/2003
Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
The appellants referred to, and questioned the validity of, Rule 23 of the Rules of 1981, which provides for such minimum pass marks in the interview, with the submissions that such a provision was not there in any Subordinate Service Rules governing the services in Rajasthan, except in the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 although such provisions were made in some of the Rules relating to State Services. The appellants contended that the personality test might be appropriate for giving appointment on a post where the appointee was required to discharge the duties of administrative nature and to deal with the public and where personality might carry an important role in discharge of duties but, for the job of Legal Assistant, of essentially looking after the legal work in the particular department and tendering advice in respect of the legal matters, the personality test was entirely irrelevant. It was contended that the nature of job was that of table work with no direct contact with the public and then, the emoluments were more or less equivalent to those of Upper Division Clerks. Hence, the petitioners-appellants contended, the personality as such has no role to play in the duties required to be discharged by the Legal Assistant. It was also submitted that the marks obtained in viva-voce alone could not have been made a decisive factor for selection of the candidate for the post in question.
5DBSAW No.233/2003
Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
It was also submitted that by adopting such mode of selection, the persons having inferior knowledge of law were selected as against the persons having better knowledge of law who secured higher marks in written examination. It was also contended that the existing Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules had been amended by the State Government and the requirement of minimum qualifying marks in interview had been done away with showing that even the existing rules were being amended to remove the requirement of minimum marks in viva-voce. The appellants, thus, contended that the condition requiring a candidate to secure minimum 35% marks in the viva-voce test was totally arbitrary, being irrelevant for the post of Legal Assistant.
It was further submitted that even if the condition of viva-voce test was to be considered reasonable yet, the condition of minimum marks in viva-voce for the post of Legal Assistant was discriminatory as it gave decisive power to exclude most meritorious candidate who secured higher marks in the written tests and to select a candidate who would not have been selected otherwise looking to his performance in the written test, conducted to judge his knowledge on the subject for which selection is to take place. According to the appellants, the discrimination was based on irrelevant consideration because the candidates having better 6 DBSAW No.233/2003 Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
knowledge on the subject were excluded on the basis of securing lesser mark in the viva-voce which was conducted not to judge the knowledge of the person on the subject but to test the personality that had no relevance with the duties to be discharged. It was also submitted that fixing the minimum marks for viva-voce giving power to exclude the meritorious candidate was itself sufficient for declaring it as unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires.
In the impugned order dated 17.01.2003, the learned Single Judge found untenable the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners-appellants on the question of validity of the provision requiring minimum passing marks in viva- voce, particularly with reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehmood Alam Tariq & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors: AIR 1988 SC 1451 and observed,-
"11.......... Hon'ble Apex Court held that "The 'interview' is now an accepted aid to the selection and is designed to give the selectors some evidence of the personality and character of the candidates." Not only this but the Apex Court considered the problems which may come, if more weight is given to the interview in the matter of selection particularly, where the selection is based solely on interview and gives a decisive power to the selectors. The argument noted was- "The arguments in the case on the illegality of the prescription of minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce turned more on the undesirability of such a condition in the background of the increasing public suspicion of abuse of such situations by the repositories of the power. The standards of conduct in public life, over the years, have, unfortunately, not helped to lessen these suspicions. Tests of this kind owing to the repeated 7 DBSAW No.233/2003 Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
onslaughts on the sensibilities of the public in the past, tend themselves too readily to the speculation that on such occasions considerations other than those that are relevant prevailed." Ultimately held:-
"On a careful consideration of the matter, we are persuaded to the view that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks of the 60 (33%) out of the maximum marks of 180 set apart for the viva-voce examination does not, by itself, incurred any constitutional infirmity. The principles laid down in the cases of Ajay Hasia (AIR 1981 SC
487), Lila Dhar (AIR 1981 SC 1777), Ashok Kumar yadav (AIR 1987 SC
454), do not militate against or render impermissible such a prescription."
The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the judgment of the division bench of this Court by which the division bench of this Court struck down the Rule fixing minimum qualifying marks for and viva-voce examination and restored the position of providing requirement of minimum marks in interview for selection."
(emphasis supplied) The learned Single Judge rejected the challenge to Rule 23 ibid. with reference to the principles aforesaid and said:
"(13) In the light of above principles as laid down by the Supreme Court it is clear that prescription of minimum marks for interview is permissible even if it may become a determining factor. Here in present case, total marks are 170 (150 for written test and 20 marks for interview). The candidate is required to secure 7 marks out of 20 kept for interview which is only 4.1% of the aggregate marks, which also cannot be said to be giving extra weight to the marks for interview.
Therefore, in view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, challenge to the rule 23 of the Rules of 1981, only on the ground that it gives decisive power to the selectors to knockout the candidates who secured more marks or who secured highest marks in the written examination and on the ground of its undesirability, are concerned, neither survive nor can be re-agitated." 8 DBSAW No.233/2003
Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
The learned Single Judge also rejected the contention that the personality test ought not to carry any weight because of the nature of the work and said:
"(19) I do not find any force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the post of the Legal Assistant is of not of such nature where any weight can be given to the personality test. Work of Legal Assistant cannot said to be, work of merely of clerical nature nor it can be equated with the work of any U.D.C. even when there may be some similarities in the service conditions for the post of Legal Assistant and U.D.C.. Giving advise on the point of law even by Legal Assistant carries its weight and has different value than the putting note by any U.D.C. or any clerical staff or the employee of equivalent rank.
Very many occasions comes for the government servants even at the initial stage of their appointment when they are assigned some additional work, which may be of importance, which they are required to do. Effect of the personality over his actual working can be judged only by his personality test by Viva-Voce. Now a days, when there is a tough competition for each and every post and the large number of candidates are coming forward for the post of even of lowest cadre then the administration is required to fix the criteria for selection, which improves the function of the institution itself."
The learned Single Judge further rejected the suggestion about likelihood of abuse of power by prescribing minimum marks for interview and said:
"(21) So far as the apprehension of abuse of power is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the affairs of the government cannot be conducted on the principles of distrust and if the selectors had acted malafidely or with oblique motive, there are administrative law remedies to secure relief against such abuse of powers.
These observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgement of Mohd.Alab Tariq give complete answer to the apprehension of the petitioners that by adopting the method of viva-voce test, requiring minimum marks in the viva-voce test, will permit the 9 DBSAW No.233/2003 Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
selectors to exclude the meritorious candidates and select the candidate of lesser merit. It is not the case of the petitioners that the selectors abused process of selection."
In view of the aforesaid and after finding no case for interference, the learned Single Judge proceeded to reject the writ petition. Hence this appeal.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has strenuously argued that giving importance to the interview in the case of service in question is clearly illegal and such prescription is not found in the majority of the service rules. The learned counsel has strongly relied upon the decision in the case of Praveen Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.: AIR 2001 SC 152 and submitted that therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that in case where neither the job required matured personality nor the nature of job required so, making the marks in interview decisive is clearly illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that the result of the offending provision contained in Rule 23 is that a person having inferior knowledge of law might be selected as against the one having better knowledge of law. According to learned counsel, the legal knowledge of the candidate could be decided by way of the written examination, which is of importance and decisive of merit of the person so far the post of Legal Assistant is concerned; and it had been entirely 10 DBSAW No.233/2003 Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
unjustified when the persons like the appellants getting higher marks in written test were excluded only for not securing the minimum prescribed marks in the interview. The learned counsel submitted that looking to the nature of the post and the job, prescribing of minimum marks in interview cannot be countenanced. The learned counsel also referred to the decisions in Ajay Hasia & Ors Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors : (1981) 1 SCC 722, All India State Bank Officers' Federation & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.: (1997) 9 SCC 151 and Minor A. Peeriakaruppan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.: 1971 (1) SCC 38.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has duly supported the order impugned and contended that Rule 23 of the Rules of 1981 does not suffer from any vice or infirmity; and that the appellants, who had taken a chance of getting selected under the Rules of 1981 and who filed the writ petition only on being not successful in the examination, are not entitled to any relief. It is also submitted that the petition wherefrom this intra-court appeal arises, has been entirely incompetent where the petitioners sought to challenge the selections but did not implead all the selected candidates as parties. The learned counsel has referred to the decision of this Court in Emarata Ram Poniya & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan: 2005 (3) RDD 19 (Raj.) (DB).
11DBSAW No.233/2003
Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
After having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, we are clearly of opinion that this special appeal lacks merit, the appellants are not entitled for any relief in this matter, and their challenge to Rule 23 of the Rules of 1981 has rightly been rejected by the learned Single Judge.
The issue sought to be raised by the appellants in this case essentially stands answered in the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehmood Alam Tariq's case (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, referred to its earlier decision in State of U.P. Vs. Rafiquddin: AIR 1988 SC 162 and observed as under:
"9. Indeed, the point raised in the appeals admits of the answer found in the pronouncement of this court in State of U.P. Vs. Rafiquddin, 1987 (4) JT 251 : (AIR 1988 SC 162) where this Court considered the permissibility of the prescription of minimum qualifying or cut-off marks in viva voce examination, while dealing with clause (ii) of the proviso to Rule 19 (as it stood prior to the 1972 amendment) of the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules 1951. The provision required the selection committee, inter alia, to ensure that persons who did not secure sufficiently high marks in the interview were not recommended for the posts. Pursuant to the power thus reserved to it, the selection committee, prescribed certain minimum cut-off marks for the interview. This Court upholding the validity of the prescription observed at pages 264 and 265 (of JT): (at pages 171-172 and 173 of AIR):
" . . . Aggregate marks obtained by a candidate determined his position in the list, but the proviso of the rule required the Commission to satisfy itself that the candidate had obtained such aggregate marks in the written test as to qualify him for appointment to service and further he had obtained such sufficiently high marks in viva voce which would show his suitability for the 12 DBSAW No.233/2003 Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
service. The scheme underlying R. 19 and the proviso made it apparent that obtaining of the minimum aggregate marks in the written test and also the minimum in the viva voce was the sine qua non before the Commission could proceed to make its recommendation in favour of a candidate for appointment to the service. The Commission in view of Cl. (ii) of the proviso had power to fix the minimum marks for viva voce for judging the suitability of a candidate for service. Thus a candidate who had merely secured the minimum of the aggregate marks or above was not entitled to be included in the list of successful candidates unless he had also secured the minimum marks which had been prescribed for the viva voce test...."
"... The Commission had, therefore, power to fix the norm and in the instant case it had fixed 35 per cent minimum marks for viva voce test. The viva voce test is a well-
recognised method of judging the suitability of a candidate for appointment to public services and this method had almost universally been followed in making selection for appointment to public services. Where selection is made on the basis of written as well as viva-voce test, the final result is determined on the basis of the aggregate marks. If any minimum marks either in the written test or in viva voce test are fixed to determine the suitability of a candidate the same has to be respected. Cl.
(ii) of the proviso to R.19 clearly confers power on the Commission to fix minimum marks for viva voce test for judging the suitability of a candidate for the service. We do not find any constitutional legal infirmity in the provision."
(Emphasis supplied) This should, in our opinion, conclude the present controversy in favour of the appellants."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held in Mehmood Alam Tariq's case (supra) that prescription of minimum qualifying marks of 33% out of the marks set apart for 13 DBSAW No.233/2003 Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
viva-voce test does not by itself incur any constitutional infirmity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that academic excellence was one thing and ability to deal with the public with tact and imagination is another thing. Both are necessary for an officer. There remains no doubt on the principle that a rule prescribing minimum qualifying marks in viva-voce, by itself, is not illegal or unconstitutional.
In a series of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that no hard and fast rule of universal application could be provided in regard to allocation of marks for viva-voce test; but when allocation of marks is found to have been made with an intention which is capable of being abused or misused, the same is liable to be struck down as ultra vires the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also pointed out that the question as to how much marks should be allocated for interview would depend upon the post and the nature of duties to be performed.
It has been argued that Mehmood Alam Tariq's case (supra) cannot have the application to the present case for the nature of job and duties being different. In regard to the question as to whether the post in question is of such nature where the personality would not have any role to play and therefore, there ought not be any minimum marks, we are at one with the observations of the learned Single Judge that the 14 DBSAW No.233/2003 Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
work of Legal Assistant cannot be said to be merely of clerical nature nor it could be equated with the work of an Upper Divisional Clerk even when there might be some similarity in the service conditions. A Legal Assistant, the learned Single Judge has rightly said, cannot be supposed to work in isolation and it cannot be said that he need not to deal with the public. Looking to the nature of the job, the factor relating to personality cannot be ignored altogether.
Further, it is not a matter of only dealing with the public that is required to be ensured with the traits of personality but all the requirements for a Legal Assistant to be an effective officer in the governmental set-up to render legal assistance and thereby helping the government in taking and implementing its decisions and at the same time, rendering adequate assistance for proper presentation of the pleas before the Courts cannot, for all purposes, be equated with that of a clerk supposed to work in isolation. When several and varying aspects are required to be dealt with by a Legal Assistant, who in the set-up of the Rules of 1981, gets the chances of promotion as Head Legal Assistant and then, as Assistant Legal Remembrancer and ultimately to the post of Joint Legal Remembrancer, it cannot be said that the post is such where, while making recruitment, the factors related with personality and personal qualities like alertness, 15 DBSAW No.233/2003 Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
resourcefullness, dependability, ability to take initiative, and effectiveness in discussions and dealing with others etc. could be ignored altogether.
Even otherwise, as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, only 20 marks were provided for interview out of the total marks of 170. The emphasis, with 150 marks, had obviously been on the written test. When only about 11.76% of the total marks were provided for interview, we are unable to accept the submission s that any disproportionate emphasis was laid on the interview. Of course, the minimum had been expected to be secured in the interview but such minimum had also been put only at 35% of 20 marks, i.e., 7. The desirability of the minimum standards in the personality, looking to the nature of the job, cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary; and does not in any manner offend any of the constitutional provisions so as to declare Rule 23 ultra vires.
The suggestions about likelihood of abuse of power is too remote and uncertain; and it cannot be presumed that whenever minimum marks are provided in the interview they are bound to be abused. This Court cannot proceed with distrust and cannot assume that the selectors would always be acting malafide or with oblique motive. The suggestions as made on behalf of the appellants essentially remain theoretical and do not make out a ground for interference by 16 DBSAW No.233/2003 Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
the Court.
The decision in Praveen Singh's case (supra) dealing with different fact situation and different questions has no application to the facts of the present case. Therein recruitment to the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer was sought to be made on the basis of viva-voce test only and the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the process as adopted by the respondents was not in conformity with the rules and with the information-sheet circulated by the service commission. It was found that under the rules, specific marks were earmarked for written examination on various subjects together with totality of the marks for viva-voce test. It was found that total 450 marks were provided for the examination of which, only 50 were earmarked for viva-voce and thus, it was held that those 50 marks of viva-voce were not intended to be relevant and crucial while rendering the other 400 marks totally superficial. In the context, Hon'ble Supreme Court said that the interview should not be the only method of assessment of the merit of the candidates. It was held that though interview undoubtedly was of significant factor but ought not be the sole guiding factor. The present one has not been a case where the selections were made only on the basis of marks of interview; and it is noticed that the merit had been prepared on the basis of marks obtained in written and 17 DBSAW No.233/2003 Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
interview taken together. The question as to whether there could be minimum marks for interview or not had not been the matter of consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Praveen Singh's case (supra).
The decision in All India State Bank Officers Federation (supra) was taken note of by the learned Single Judge too. The learned Single Judge has rightly pointed out that therein, in relation to promotions, the interview marks were put only at about 25% of the aggregate; and the requirement of securing 60% of these marks was held to be not a case of giving exaggerated weightage to the interviews in the process of selection. The said decision is of little assistance to the appellants. Therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that each case is required to be judged on its own facts thus:
"30. ............. There can be no rigid or hard and fast rule that the interview marks can only be 15 per cent and no more. The percentage of marks for viva voce or interview which can be regarded as unreasonable will depend on the facts of each case. Decisions of this Court show that no rigid rule, relating to percentage of marks for interview of general universal application can or has been laid down. What the interview or viva voce marks should be may vary from service to service and the office or position or the purpose for which the interview is to be held. But the interview marks should not be so high as to give an authority unchecked scope to manipulate or act in an arbitrary manner while making selection. Where merit can be best judged by holding an interview there such marks may be high but each case will have to be judged on its own facts. Interview marks may be the minimal in such cases as relating to admission to a college as held by this Court in Minor A. Periakaruppan v. State of T.N. and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi.18 DBSAW No.233/2003
Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
In Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan this Court, on the other hand, held that in some cases relating to recruitment from amongst persons of matured personality holding of an interview may be the only way subject to basic and essential requirements being satisfied........."
In Ajay Hasia's case (supra) concerning admission in the colleges for B.E. Course, allocation of 33.3% of the total marks for the purpose of interview were considered rendering ineffective the admission procedure and on facts, it was found that selection of candidates made on the basis of such procedure was not sustainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, pointed out, the relevance of oral interview test in the following:-
".....The oral interview test is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates, but in the absence of any better test for measuring personal characteristics and traits, the oral interview test must, at the present stage, be regarded as not irrational or irrelevant though it is subjective and based on first impression, its result is influenced by many uncertain factors and it is capable of abuse. We would, however, like to point out that in the matter of admission to college or even in the matter of public employment, the oral interview test as presently held should not be relied upon as an exclusive test, but it may be resorted to only as an additional or supplementary test and, moreover, great care must be taken to see that persons who are appointed to conduct the oral interview test are men of high integrity, calibre and qualification."
The said decision in Ajay Hasia and other decisions have been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehmood Alam Tariq's case (supra) while holding that 19 DBSAW No.233/2003 Neeraj Kant & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
prescription of minimum qualifying marks does not, by itself, incur any constitutional infirmity. For the very same reason as foregoing, the decision in Minor A. Peeriakaruppan (supra) relating to admission to medical colleges where the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that earmarking of 75 marks out of 275 for interview prima facie appeared to be excessive, is of no help to the petitioners; and does not make out a case for interference by this Court.
In view of the above, we are clearly of opinion that the writ petition as filed by the petitioners had been totally bereft of substance and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the same. No case for interference in this appeal is made out.
The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. (A.M. SAPRE), J.
cpgoyal/-