THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No. 806 of 2022
JUDGMENT:
Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Vadlakonda learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Nivedita, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 40361 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the petitioner.
3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition questioning the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in selecting respondent No. 5 as the fair price shop dealer of Shop No. 2052826 situated at Arepalli Village, V. Saidapur Mandal, Karimnagar District.
4. A notification was issued on 05.09.2022 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment as fair prices shop dealer in 2 the aforesaid location. Appellant had applied under the general category so also respondent No. 5. In the written examination which was held on 27.09.2022, it is stated that the appellant had secured 45 marks out of 80, whereas respondent No. 5 had secured 35 marks out of 80. Both became eligible for interview. Interview was held on 30.09.2022. However, respondent No. 3 has selected respondent No. 5 for appointment as the fair price shop dealer. Appellant could come to know that respondent No. 5 was awarded 19 marks out of 20 in viva-voce whereas appellant was awarded only 08 marks out of 20 marks.
5. It was contended before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the appellant that awarding only 08 marks to the appellant in viva- voce was not justified considering the fact that she is a more meritorious candidate, she having secured 45 marks in the written examination whereas respondent No. 5 had secured only 35 marks in the written examination but he was awarded 19 marks in the viva- voce. Learned counsel for the appellant had further submitted 3 before the learned Single Judge that respondents should file counter affidavit to disclose as on what basis they had awarded 19 marks to respondent No. 5 in the viva-voce and what type of questions were put to him.
6. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide the order dated 04.11.2022 in the following terms:
"The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though the petitioner is more eligible candidate, respondent No. 3 has selected the unofficial respondent No. 5, who has secured lesser marks than the petitioner in the written examination. The petitioner wants a response from respondent No. 3 on what basis they have granted more marks in the interview. According to the petitioner, 19 marks should not be granted to the unofficial respondent No. 5. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the process of judicial review cannot go into these aspects. The persons, who are interviewing the candidates, are satisfied and granted marks to the 4 unofficial respondent No. 5. This Court, at any stretch of imagination, cannot seek response from them and on what basis they have granted those marks. Hence, this Court finds no reason to grant the relief that is sought in the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs".
7. We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Merely because appellant had secured more marks than respondent No. 5 in the written examination, it does not mean or imply that he should also to be given more marks than respondent No. 5 in the viva-voce.
8. Though awarding 19 marks out of 20 in the viva-voce in favour of respondent No. 5 may appear to be on the higher side, it is however the assessment of the interview board which had awarded him such marks. We cannot substitute our views with that of the interview board and direct that because the appellant had secured 5 higher marks in the written examination, the same pattern of marks should be continued in the viva voce.
9. We thus find no merit in the appeal. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J Dt: 03.04.2023 Bw 6 50 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT APPEAL NO. 806 of 2022 Date: 03.04.2023 Bw