Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The appellant for the first time by filing reply affidavit/rejoinder raised the point of discrimination. This question of fact cannot be permitted to be raised by way of rejoinder for the first time. (See: Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha AIR, 1959 SC 395; Arti Sapru v. State of J & K, (1981) 2 SCC 484; Ashok Lanka v. Rishi Dikshit, (2006) 9 SCC 90)

10. Apart from this, the appellant has not impleaded any such person who were given favourable treatment and secured marks over and above the appellant in the matter of selection for the post of development officer. The Judgment of Supreme Court K. Manjusree (supra) deals with the principle of 'scaling down of marks', as discussed above, even if reduced total marks are treated as 80, in place of 100, the appellant has not secured 55% marks out of 80 marks. Thus this Judgment in K. Manjusree (supra) is of no assistance to the appellant. Similarly, Judgment of P. Mohanan Pillai (supra) did not help the appellant because Supreme Court clearly stated that for fixing of maximum marks for interview, no hard and fast rule can be laid down. It would depend upon the nature of duties of a particular post. The appellant could not point out any statutory violation or infringement of fundamental rights. The Learned Single Judge has assigned plausible reasons for rejecting the writ petition. We find no reason to disturb the impugned Judgment. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.