Ramesh Chandra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1519 Del

JUDGMENT

Khan, J.

1. Fifteen vacancies of ASI (Clerical) in General Category were notified for direct recruitment in CISF. Petitioner, a Constable, serving in the force also applied and was assigned the Bhopal Centre. Forty candidates including him qualified the written examination from there. He also cleared the typing test. But when it became to physical test he was declared "knock kneed". He, represented against this and was re-examined and declared fit, but meanwhile, respondents had selected/appointed 15 candidates against notified vacancies. Later a new Selection Board was convened to interview him. But he cold not make the grade. Hence this petition praying for appointment to the post of ASI and quashing of two communications dated 27.10.1999 and 14.12.1999 informing him of his rejection.

2. Petitioner claims that though he had cleared the written, typing and physical tests yet respondents had wrongly assessed him at the interviews to deny him the appointment. He also challenged the composition of interview Board and alleges that it fell short of one member (Commandant) under Rules.

3. Respondents, in their counter have explained that examination/test were conducted at 11 centres and petitioner took his test at Bhopal centre. He obtained 126/200 marks in the written examination and He was then called for typing test in which he secured speed of 36.2 words per minute in English language. He was later interviewed, but could only muster 18 marks out of 50 marks in that. In all he obtained 144 marks out of 250 and was accordingly placed at serial No. 67 of the overall merit list and as such the question of his selection/appointment against 15 available vacancies did not arise.

4. L/C for petitioner pointed out that petitioner could not figure at serial No. 67 as only 40 candidates had cleared the written examination and 19 the typing test. This according to him had made the whole selection process suspect.

5. It appears that petitioner was proceeding on a wrong premise that 40 candidates in all had cleared the written examination. The fact of the matter is that these 40 candidates had qualified from Bhopal centre and so had others from remaining 10 centres on which basis Respondents had formulated an overall list in which placing him at serial No. 67. We find nothing wrong in this and it seems that petitioner's plea emanates from a misunderstanding or wrong notion.

6. Petitioner's challenge to the composition of selection Board is also a submission in despair. though it is asserted by respondents that 4th member (Commandant) was also present at the interview, Petitioners could not turn round to challenge the constitution of the Board belatedly on a second though through an amendment after he had appeared before it and participated in the interview.

7. For all this we find no merit in this petition, which is dismissed.

Costs imposed by court order dated 1.3.2002 shall stand waived.