Taniya Malik vs Registrar General Of The High Court Of ... on 16 February, 2018
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
respondents advertised posts on 04.10.2016. Written test was conducted on
20.01.2017 and interview was conducted on 09.03.2017. In the
advertisement, it was categorically disclosed that to be eligible for the post,
candidates must have to secure equal to or more than the minimum
qualifying marks in the interview. The respondent-bank on 04.10.2016
specified minimum qualifying marks of interview. There is no allegations
of malice as well as favoritism. Two seats have remained vacant. The
criteria of minimum marks has been applied to all the applicants, thus, the
petitioner cannot claim any prejudice. To buttress his contention, learned
counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Taniya Malik vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of
Delhi, 2018 (14) SCC 129.