Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Pertinently, Appendix-I does not support the Petitioner's repeated assertion that interview was used as the real device to exclude him. On the contrary, the chart shows that the Petitioner secured interview marks of 18 out of 20, yielding a normalised interview score of 9, in both backdated years. That is not a failing score. It is also not markedly out of line with the last selected candidates, whose normalised interview scores are shown as 9.5, 9 and 9. The Petitioner's appraisal component too was not weak. In one of the two backdated years, his PAF-derived score is 39, which is in fact higher than the 36 to 38 range shown for the bottom selected candidates. The real point of deficit lies elsewhere. His written-test component was lower, resulting in a lower overall composite. The record, therefore, does not support the contention that he was filtered out on interview alone, still less that interview was manipulated to keep him out.