Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The applicant in O.A.No. 367/99 is one of the selected candidates. He has filed the application to direct the official respondents to complete the selection process and appoint him.

4. Employment notification No. 1/1995 dated 7.9.95 was issued by the I.C.F, inviting applications from candidates who fulfilled the eligibility conditions prescribed in the said notice for filling up 330 posts of Khalasis in the scale of pay of Rs. 750-940 in the I.C.F. 19% of the posts were reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste communities and 1 % for candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe communities. 27% of the posts were reserved for candidates to Other Backward Classes. It was also mentioned that total vacancies and reservation included 3% for Physically Handicapped (PH) and 20% for Ex-servicemen. It was indicated therein that the number of vacancies was provisional and was likely to vary. The last date for receipt of applications was 6.10.95.

22. The applicant is one of the selected candidates. He has filed the application to direct the official respondents to complete the selection process and appoint him. No reply has been filed by the respondents.

23. Application filed for declaring the selection process illegal. The applicant underwent Apprenticeship in the Carriage and Wagon Workshop in the trade of Carpenter and passed the National Council Trade test. First he was interviewed on 17.2.97. Again he was interviewed on 25.9.98. Interview was not conducted properly. No preference was given to him for passing the National Council Trade Test as a Carpenter. He is son of a retired employee. No preference was given for that also. 55 persons were selected between RollNos. 10305 and 10397. However, only 2 were selected between Roll Nos. 30241 and 40016. So selection is arbitrary.

5. Whether the marks set apart for the interview was on the high side?

6. Whether the spread of marks under the four different heads ensured uniformity in the selection or did it give room for wrong assessment and awarding of unmerited marks and consequently (sic) the whole selection process?

7. Whether the technically qualified/trade tested candidates and course completed Act Apprentices should have been given preference in the matter of selection?

8. Whether the non-joinder of candidates whose selection has been announced in the newspapers is fatal to the applications under consideration now?