Allahabad High Court
Kshetrapal vs Central Recruitment & Promotion ... on 28 April, 2011
Bench: Krishna Murari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No. 18
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24240 of 2011
Kshetrapal ------- Petitioner
Versus
Central Recruitment & Promotion Department,
State Bank of India & Anr. ------- Respondents
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate in the recruitment on the post in the clerical cadre in different divisions of State Bank of India conducted by respondent no. 1, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs.
"1. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to rearrange the interview of petitioner and decide his selection on the basis of fresh interview.
2. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to select the petitioner for the post of clerical cadre on the basis of marks secured by him.
3. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
4. to award cost of writ petition to the petitioner."
Facts are that in pursuance to the advertisement issued by respondent no. 1 on 23.07.2009, petitioner was also an applicant. He appeared in the written examination and was declared successful and was called upon to appear in the interview scheduled to be held on 28.04.2010. However, he was not declared successful.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he secured total 136 marks in written examination, but in the interview, he was awarded only 10 marks and because the minimum marks for scheduled caste category in the interview was prescribed as 12 marks, as such, he was not declared successful. It is further contended that since the petitioner has secured 136 marks in written examination, which is much more than the lowest selected candidate, who has secured 135 marks including the interview marks, he is liable to be selected.
The argument is totally misconceived.
In case, if separate minimum qualifying marks are prescribed for written examination and interview then the candidate has to secure the same for being declared successful. According to the own case set up by the petitioner, he secured 10 marks in interview which was less than 12, the minimum prescribed qualifying marks. Apparently, the petitioner failed in the interview, and thus, was not selected. Petitioner cannot claim selection merely on the basis that he secured more marks in written examination than the lowest selected candidate, who secured 135 marks in total including the interview marks. When the requirement was to obtain minimum qualifying marks in the written examination as well as in interview separately then selection cannot be claimed merely on the basis of higher marks obtained in written examination.
It has next been contended that petitioner was purposely given 10 marks and was entitled for being awarded higher marks in view of the fact that he obtained high marks in the written test.
The petitioner cannot challenge the wisdom of interview board, which awarded him marks. Neither any mala fide has been alleged against the interview board nor the same can be presumed.
In the case of Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of J&K & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 486, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under.
"The petitioners subjectively feel that as they had fared better in the written test and had got more marks therein as compared to the selected respondents concerned, they should have been given more marks also at the oral interview. But that is in the realm of assessment of relative merits of candidates concerned by the expert committee before whom these candidates appeared for the viva voce test. Merely on the basis of petitioners' apprehension or suspicion that they were deliberately given less marks at the oral interview as compared to the rival candidates, it cannot be said that the process of assessment was vitiated. This contention is in the realm of mere suspicion having no factual basis. It has to be kept in view that there is not even a whisper in the petition about any personal bias of the Members of the Interview Committee against the petitioners. The have also not alleged any mala fides on the part of the Interview Committee in this connection. Consequently, the attack on assessment of the merits of the petitioners cannot be countenanced. It remains in the exclusive domain of the expert committee to decide whether more marks should be assigned to the petitioners or to the respondents concerned. It cannot be the subject-matter of an attack before us as we are not sitting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by the committee so far as the candidates interviewed by them are concerned."
Last contention on behalf of the petitioner is that prescribing separate qualifying marks for written test and interview is arbitrary and illegal.
Petitioner after having taken a chance of appearing in the selection proceedings, it is not open to him to challenge the selection proceedings or to challenge the rule or advertisement under which he has appeared. It is well settled that once a candidate has taken a chance of appearing in the proceedings for selection then it is not open for him to challenge the same or to challenge the rule or advertisement under which he appeared, as such, candidate has no locus standi.
Reference may be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. N. Chandrasekharan & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 694, wherein it has been held that after having appeared in the written test and interview, an unsuccessful candidate cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the procedure contending that marks prescribed for interview in confidential report are disproportionately high and the authorities shall not fix a minimum to be secured either in interview or in the assessment of confidential report.
In view of the above facts and discussions, the writ petition must fail and, accordingly, stands dismissed.
28.04.2011
VKS
