Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: minimum marks fixed interview in Baroda - Rajasthan Gramin Bank vs Pankaj Mishra & Ors on 26 May, 2009Matching Fragments
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ petitioners knowing well about the circular issued by the appellant DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.180/2009 Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank. vs. Megh Raj Soni & Ors.
& connected appeal.
bank appeared in the written test and appeared for interview and when they failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in the interview and were denied promotion, they have challenged the criteria fixed by the appellant bank providing for minimum qualifying marks in the interview. Since the writ petitioners themselves accepted that condition and took chance on the basis of circular issued by the appellant bank, now after failing in that, they cannot challenge the circular issued by the appellant bank fixing minimum qualifying marks for promotion to the higher post. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of above plea relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the cases of (1) Amlan Jyoti Borooah vs. State of Assam and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 227 ;(2) Dhananjay Malik and others vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171 ; and (3) of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Dr.M.C. Mehta vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in 22 ILR Raj. 711.
Learned counsel for the respondents tried to submit that the decision given by the learned Single Judge on merits is just and legal and, therefore, it may not be interfered. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that fixing of minimum qualifying marks in interview is contrary to the rules governing the services of the respondents as there is no provision in the Rules which allows fixing of minimum qualifying marks in the interview.
In the case of Union of India and another vs. N. Chandrasekharan and others reported in AIR 1998 SC 795, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the candidates were aware of the procedure for promotion before they appeared for written test and before departmental promotion proceeded, then subsequently their plea that the marks allotted to interview and ACR was unduly disproportionate or that authorities cannot fix minimum marks to be secured at interview or in ACR, cannot be entertained.
The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhananjay Malik (supra) makes it clear that even if the recruitment was not made according to the statutory Rules and prescribed education qualifications were not DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.180/2009 Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank. vs. Megh Raj Soni & Ors.
& connected appeal.
adhered to and by this Court in the case of Dr.M.C. Mehta (supra) that even where the criteria laid down in the Rules was void or in principle nullity and in the case of N. Chandrasekharan (supra), when the plea was taken that the marks allotted to interview and ACR were unduly disproportionate or that authorities cannot fix minimum marks to be secured at interview or in ACR, then also the candidates who unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection are estopped from challenging the selection criteria even if they had any valid objection.