Dipak Kumar Sharma vs U.O.I. Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 4968 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                             Judgment reserved on July 07, 2015
                                            Judgment delivered on July 14, 2015
+                        W.P.(C) 5307/2014, CM No. 10554/2014

        DIPAK KUMAR SHARMA
                                                             ..... Petitioner

                              Through:       Ms.Anu Mehta, Advocate
                                             with Mr.Rubinder Ghumman,
                                             Advocate
                              versus

        U.O.I. ANR.
                                                          ..... Respondents
                              Through:       Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Advocate
                                             with Ms.Zubeda Begum,
                                             Ms.Sana Ansari and
                                             Ms.Vanessa Singh,
                                             Advocates for R-2

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking

the following reliefs:-

(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the selection/result dated 25.06.2014 and alongwith with the entire selection process or alternatively;

(b) Revaluate the candidates who participated in the third stage of the Entrance Test and declare the result of the SIT based on merit and proper marks sheet under the

supervision of a competent independent panel for such revaluation and further hold the interview as per the revised marks obtained in the SIT.

The facts:

2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2, in the month of November 2011

advertised various posts including the post of Junior Parliamentary

Interpreter (Hindi/English) in Pay Band III in the scale of Rs.15,600-

39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-. The total number of vacancies were

four, the break up being 1 for SC, 1 for OBC and 2 for un-reserved.

3. The petitioner also applied for the said post. The advertisement

also contemplated a scheme of examination for filling up the post.

Clause 6 relating to scheme of examination also stipulated that the said

scheme is also available on the Rajya Sabha Secretariat website. The

scheme of examination contemplated various stages i.e Preliminary

Examination/Oration Test, Written Examination, Skill Test, Interview,

for making selection. It also stipulated, minimum qualifying percentage

of marks may be prescribed for written examination/personal

interview/oration test etc. The minimum qualifying percentage of marks

so prescribed were to be made available on the website of Rajya Sabha

Secretariat before the written examination is conducted. The Junior

Parliamentary Interpreter (English/Hindi) being a Category I post, an

oration test in Hindi and English of 100 marks with 50 marks each was

prescribed. The duration of the test shall be 3 minutes each for Hindi

and English. The candidate was required to speak ex-tempore in both

English and Hindi for 3 minutes each in any one of the seven topics in

English and in any one of the seven topics in Hindi given to him/her.

The objective is to assess fluency, language content, style, pronunciation

and accent, material content and voice of the candidate.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that on November 17/18, 2012, the

first stage of exam viz. Oration Test was held, wherein he, had secured

in Paper II (English) 29 marks out of 50, Paper II (Hindi) 40 marks out

of 50, and was declared successful. According to him, the second stage

of the exam viz Written Test was held on September 21, 2013. The

results of the Written Test were declared on April 30, 2014. It is his case

that the third stage of scheme of examination contemplated Simultaneous

Interpretation Test which was held on May 28/29, 2014 and the final

stage of exam viz. Interviews were held on May 30, 2014. It is his case

that he was not shortlisted for interview despite having done well in the

third stage i.e. SIT. According to him, the respondents did not announce

the name of the candidates selected for the interview, omitted to publish

the list of candidates selected for interview anywhere including on their

official website. According to him, this shows lack of transparency in

the conduct of the selection process by the respondents. He has come to

know that the selected candidates were telephonically informed and

contacted after 10 pm on May 29, 2014. It was only on June 25, 2014,

consolidated marks of successful candidates were uploaded on the

official website of Rajya Sabha and it was only after the declaration of

marks and the marks obtained under RTI, the said discrepancies have

been noticed by the petitioner. According to him, the glaring

discrepancies and illegalities occurred in the selection process revealed

that the final Mark Sheet of the candidates published on the website of

Rajya Sabha is fictitious, baseless as it does not borne out from the

mark/evaluation sheet for SIT of many candidates and which alone was

the very basis of the marks allocated/reflected in the declared result of

the candidates, who appeared in the third round of the exam i.e SIT. It is

his case that anomalies are apparent. He would state that one of the

candidates namely Ms. Arnika Sood who has been shown to have scored

40.6 marks out of 50 in Hindi to English in SIT whereas the mark sheet

obtained through RTI revealed that not a single candidate out of 32

candidates who appeared for SIT have scored/secured such marks and

likewise there are three more candidates who have been shown to have

secured marks 'in decimals' which do not tally with the corresponding

mark sheets obtained through RTI. He would also state that there are

certain meritorious candidates whose marks in previous rounds were far

ahead of others while in the final round, they were allotted less marks

and if they had been allotted passing marks, they would have made it to

the merit list.

5. It is also the case of the petitioner that the entire exam consisted of

500 marks in which the marks allocated to Oration Test were 100 marks

(50+50), Written Examination 260 marks (Paper I-160 and Paper II-100

marks), SIT (Hindi/English) 50+50 and Interview was of 40 marks.

Whereas at the time of advertising the post, the recruitment rules

required as minimum criteria of passing marks as 50% for General

Category, 45% for OBC and 40% for SC/ST and that too, component

wise, which meant that in order to clear the exam, the candidate was

required to obtain minimum passing marks in each component which

was duly followed in first stage of the test viz. Oration Test. Even up to

the commencement of the second stage, viz. Written Test, the given

requirement of minimum qualifying marks in the written exam were

clearly mentioned in the call letters issued to the candidate were 50% for

Unreserved (General), 45% for OBC and 40% for SC/ST. According to

the petitioner, the respondents issued an undated notice containing an

amendment of the abovesaid recruitment rules dispensing with the

subsisting requirement of obtaining minimum qualifying marks for

clearing the test whereby entry was given to some of the candidates who

failed to score even minimum qualifying marks in paper I of written test.

Similarly, the respondents posted a notice on their website dated

September 19, 2013 pertaining to minimum qualifying percentage of

marks which quotes „if the main/written examination involves more than

one paper, the candidate would be required to secure qualifying

percentage of marks in overall aggregate of all such papers'. The said

rule was not followed in the case of a candidate named Remya Ramesh

(General Candidate) mentioned at serial No.35 of the result list displayed

on April 30, 2014 who despite having secured less than minimum

prescribed marks for qualifying the test by scoring 64.75 out of 160 and

55 out of 100, thus making an aggregate score of 119.75 out of 260,

which is less than 50% was shown as having passed the Written Test. It

is the case of the petitioner that the selection process conducted by the

respondents was violative of recruitment rules for the said post and

hence was in violation of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The

respondents have indulged in favouritism, nepotism and corrupt practices

to accommodate a few candidates at the cost of meritorious candidates,

which is also indicated by the fact that the top four candidates in the

merit list hail from the pool of Rajya Sabha/Lok Sabha.

6. The respondents have filed their reply. It is their case that the

petitioner having failed to clear the Simultaneous Interpretation Test,

which is a very specialized test and forms a crucial component of

recruitment to the post, has filed the present petition by making gross

misrepresentation of facts, suppressing relevant facts and making

baseless, unfounded and mischievous allegations. It is their case that the

selection process was wholly transparent, fair and objective and merit

has been the sole consideration in selection of the candidates.

7. It is also the stand of the respondents that in terms of the

advertisement issued in November 2011, as per para 6, the minimum

qualifying percentage of marks were to be prescribed for written

examination/personal interview/oration test etc before the written

examination is conducted. They state that the written examination for

the said post was conducted on September 21, 2013. It is also their stand

that the scheme with minimum qualifying percentage of marks for

Oration Test, Paper-II of the Written Test and Simultaneous

Interpretation Test was notified on March 19, 2013. Simultaneously,

minimum qualifying marks for interview were approved by the

competent authority on August 16, 2013 and the same was notified on

the website of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat on September 19, 2013. The

prescription of minimum qualifying marks under the scheme is in

furtherance of the original scheme and there is no conflict between the

original scheme and the scheme notified on March 19, 2013. They

would state that there is an inconsistency in the stand of the petitioner.

According to them, the petitioner is deliberately comparing the marks

awarded by one particular evaluator to candidates of Group-I of Hindi to

English Simultaneous Interpretation Test with actual marks to show

inconsistency whereas actual marks obtained by a candidate is the

average of individual marks awarded by the three evaluators who

constituted the Evaluation Board for Group I. If the average is taken as

final marks, there is no inconsistency. They also state that while

furnishing the information under the RTI, the respondents have,

inadvertently, given marks of an evaluator for Group I of Hindi to

English Simultaneous Interpretation Test, instead of giving the

consolidated mark sheet. When the applicant Satish Kumar Sharma

preferred an appeal, the error came to notice and he was supplied with

the evaluation sheet of other two evaluators of Group I of Hindi to

English Simultaneous Interpretation Test and was also informed that the

marks obtained by the candidates were the average of the marks awarded

by the three evaluators, which aspect has been concealed by the

petitioner. The respondents would state that the petitioner has secured

only 18 marks out of 50 in Hindi to English Interpretation Test while he

secured 30 marks in English to Hindi Interpretation Test out of 50.

Thus, the petitioner scored total 48 marks out of 100 in Simultaneous

Interpretation Test as a whole and did not qualify, even if 50% marks is

applied for each of the two tests separately or it is applied for the test as

a whole. According to the respondents, the cumulative marks obtained

by the petitioner in Oration Test, Written Test and SIT were 287.50

while the last candidate of the General category who made it to the merit

list, scored a cumulative total 302.75 in these three tests. They would

state that the respondents have been maintaining transparency in the

process of recruitment. According to them, though the recruitment

agencies ordinarily declare marks only after the final stage of recruitment

process is over, in case of Rajya Sabha Secretariat, as the entry to the

next stage of recruitment process depends upon the results of the

previous stage of recruitment process, result of each stage of recruitment

process had in most of the cases been declared well before the next stage

of recruitment process. As regard Simultaneous Interpretation Test and

Interview is concerned, for convenience of the out-station candidates, it

was decided to hold the interview on the very next day of the conclusion

of the SIT as from experience, it was known that not many candidates

would qualify in the SIT and it should be possible to complete interview

of selected candidates in a day. SIT was scheduled 28th and 29th May,

2014, SIT of last group viz Group-IV was scheduled at 2.30 pm on May

29, 2014 and Interview was scheduled on May 30, 2014. It was

anticipated that by the time, the test is concluded and result complied, it

would be late evening and the technical assistance required to upload the

results on website would not be available. Moreover, even after the

results were uploaded in the late evening, some of the candidates,

particularly out-station candidates may not have internet facility

available to them at night to view it. It was accordingly decided that the

selected candidates would be informed on phone in the late evening to

come for interview, the next day. All candidates including the petitioner

were informed during SIT that the selected candidates would be

informed on phone in the late evening on May 29, 2014 for the

interview.

8. The petitioner had filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the

respondents. Insofar as the issuance of notification regarding minimum

qualifying marks on March 19, 2013 is concerned, the same has been

responded by petitioner in his rejoinder as under:-

'It is denied and disputed that there was no conflict between the original scheme and the scheme notified subsequently as claimed by the respondents to have issued on 19.3.2013'.

That apart, it is his case in the rejoinder that the respondents, on

the discrepancy with regard to the mark sheets, have propounded a new

theory of three evaluators. The petitioner had also contended that the

evaluation/assessment for all the candidates including the other three

groups has to be uniform. It is his case, the respondents are making

gross misrepresentation of facts and suppressing relevant facts. The

petitioner would state that the respondents be put to strict scrutiny as

there is no such indication from the evaluation sheets and the same

should ideally bear the signature of the evaluator in ordinary course. The

stand of the respondents have to be authenticated, supported or

established by a proof or signature by the purported evaluators and under

such circumstances, the respondents‟ stand lacks substance and

transparency and is under cloud of suspicion. According to him, it

becomes pertinent to know that why the minimum percentage of 50%

marks was not made applicable to each of the two tests/components of

Simultaneous Interpretation Test, whereas the same was applied in

Oration Test for each of the two test/components. This, according to the

petitioner, is clear irregularity and arbitrary.

10. The petitioner has also stated that for Group-I, there were three

separate evaluation sheet duly signed by the individual evaluator but for

other groups, there were only consolidated sheets and no separate sheets.

He states that for Group-I also, there must have been a consolidated list.

According to him, the list, which was displayed on the notice board was

not supplied to the petitioner, even though request was made through

RTI. In other words, it was his case that the theory of the best of three is

highly suspicious and merely an afterthought and a creation of the

respondents to crease out visible anomalies in conducting the exam and

assessment of merit of candidates. He also raised an issue of conducting

the interview in quick succession to the exclusion of the other candidates

participating in the other exam indicates foul play on the part of the

respondents. The process in the final stage was highly opaque and kept

within confines of an exclusive club well-guarded from the other

candidates till a long time thereafter and made it public much later after

the conclusion of the entire selection process.

11. Ms. Anu Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from

reiterating the submissions made in the writ petition and rejoinder, would

draw my attention to the advertisement issued in the month of November

2011 and para 6 of the scheme of examination. That apart, she has

drawn my attention to annexure P-4 to contend that the minimum

qualifying percentage of marks in the written examination for the post of

Junior Parliamentary Interpreter (English/Hindi) was 50%. She has also

drawn my attention to annexure P-5 (colly) at page 42 of the paper book

wherein a note was given stipulating that there is no minimum qualifying

percentage of marks in Paper-I (objective type multiple choice answers)

of Written Test. It is her submission that this annexure P-5(colly) is a

deviation from the earlier notification of September 4, 2013 wherein it

was specifically stated that the minimum qualifying percentage of marks

in the written examination was 50%. According to her, the note at page

42, stipulates, there is no minimum qualifying percentage of marks in

Paper-I (objective type multiple choice answers) of written test, is a

deviation and could not have been prescribed. That apart, she would

state that even in Oration Test, the eligibility marks were 50% in both

components of the Oration Test. She states, that the scheme of

examination prescribing minimum qualifying marks vide notification

dated March 19, 2013 is a doubtful document as the said notification did

not have a date on which it was issued. It is her case, that the reliance

now placed by the respondent on the notification purported to have been

issued on March 19, 2013 is clearly an afterthought only to bring in

certain candidates, who have secured less than 50 marks in paper I

(objective type multiple choice answers) of written test. She has also

highlighted the call letter, issued to the petitioner on September 4, 2013

wherein it was clearly mentioned that qualifying percentage of marks in

the written examination for the post of Junior Parliamentary Interpreter

(English/Hindi) as 50% for unreserved, 45% for OBC and 40% for

SC/ST. She states that in the call letter, it was not prescribed that there is

no minimum qualifying percentage of marks in Paper I (objective type

multiple choice answers) of written test. She would also highlight the

manner in which the SIT was conducted and the results, thereof, were

not published and the candidates were called on phone to appear in the

interview shows the mala fide intent with a purpose to select their own

candidates. According to her, the mark sheet which was received in the

RTI, does not reflect the position of the results, so reflected in the so-

called consolidated Statement of Marks. She would rely upon the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of JT 2009 (9) SC 70

Tamilnadu Computer SC B.Ed G.T. Welf. Society Vs. Higher

Secondary School Computer Tech Assn. and ors to contend that

reducing the minimum qualifying marks after the examination, is illegal

and would rely upon para 15 of the said judgment.

12. On the other hand, Mr. J.P. Sengh, Learned Senior Counsel for the

respondents would submit that the petitioner, having appeared in the

written examination cannot challenge the process undertaken by the

respondents for conducting the same. In this regard, he would rely upon

the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported as 1995 (3) SCC

486 Madan Lal and ors Vs. State of J & K and ors in support of his

contention. On merit, it is his contention that the selection process was

transparent in accordance with the terms of the advertisement issued for

filling up various posts including the post of Junior Parliamentary

Interpreter. He would state, that the advertisement did stipulate that the

minimum qualifying marks shall be prescribed before the written

examination. The written examination was conducted on September 21,

2013 whereas, the minimum qualifying marks for Oration Test, Paper II

of the written test and SIT were notified on March 19, 2013. He would

state, the contention of the petitioner that no such minimum qualifying

marks were notified on March 19, 2013 is incorrect. He also states, that

the minimum qualifying marks for interview were notified on September

19, 2013 whereas, the Written Test, SIT and the interview were held

thereafter i.e on September 21, 2013, May 28th, 29th and 30th 2014

respectively. He concedes to the fact that the call letter issued to the

petitioner on September 4, 2013 did not refer to the minimum qualifying

percentage of marks would not be applicable in Paper I (objective type

multiple choice answers) of written test. The same was inadvertent and

would not infer any wrongdoing on the part of the respondents. In any

case, it is his submission, the same was contrary to the notification

already issued on March 19, 2013. He would also state, no prejudice has

been caused to the petitioner as he was successful having secured 50%

marks in both the objective type written examination and descriptive

type examination and was called for SIT. He was unsuccessful in the

SIT examination wherein the petitioner had secured 18 marks out of 50

in Hindi to English interpretation test and 30 marks in English to Hindi

interpretation test out of 50. Thus he secured 48 marks out of 100 in SIT

as a whole. Therefore, he did not qualify on both the counts, not having

50% in aggregate and also 50% marks each in the two tests

simultaneously. Further, he states that the confusion which is sought to

be created by the petitioner by stating that the marks received under the

RTI were at variance with the consolidated statement issued for the SIT

is concerned, he would state that there is no discrepancy whatsoever

between the marks made available to the petitioner under RTI and the

marks uploaded on the website of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat.

According to him, the petitioner is only making an issue by comparing

the marks initially provided to one applicant named Satish Kumar

Sharma who was inadvertently provided mark sheets containing marks

awarded by a particular evaluator to candidates of Group I of Hindi to

English SIT instead of their consolidated mark sheets which was

prepared on the basis of average of individual marks provided by all the

three evaluators who form the evaluation board of Group I of Hindi to

English SIT. Even Satish Kumar Sharma, in appeal was provided with

the marks sheets given by the other two evaluators also. He was also

informed that the actual marks obtained by a candidate is the average of

the individual marks given by the three evaluators but the petitioner

deliberately and mischievously comparing the marks awarded by a

particular evaluator with the actual marks uploaded on the website of

Rajya Sabha Secretariat to create a false impression that there exists

discrepancy in marks awarded to candidates of Hindi to English SIT.

According to him, the marks obtained by Arnika Sood, a candidate in

Group I of Hindi to English SIT, were 40.6 which was the average of the

individual marks of 38, 41 and 43 awarded by the three evaluators in the

SIT. Insofar as the results of SIT announced by the respondents is

concerned, the results were uploaded on the website on August 30, 2014

before the commencement of interview. The candidates were also

informed telephonically after the results were finalized in the late

evening of May 29, 2014 keeping in view their convenience as also to

ensure that successful candidates do get duly informed. According to

him, the date of the SIT and the interviews were fixed and informed to

the candidates in communication issued on May 6, 2014. He would

state, that it is not a case where the respondents had deliberately fixed the

interviews immediately after conduct of the SIT on May 28/29, 2014.

In fact, during the conduct of the SIT on May 28th/29th 2014, all the

candidates were informed that the selected candidates would be

telephonically informed of the results. He would also state that the last

group of SIT viz group IV was scheduled at 2.30 pm on May 29, 2014

and Interview was scheduled on May 30, 2014. It was anticipated that

by the time, the test is concluded and result complied, it would be late

evening and the technical assistance required to upload the results on

website would not be available. Moreover, even after the results were

uploaded in the late evening, some of the candidates, particularly out-

station candidates may not have internet facility available to them at

night to view it. It was accordingly, decided that candidates would be

informed on phone in the late evening to come for the interview, the next

day. According to him, the case set up by the petitioner in the petition is

totally baseless, concealing and distorting the facts and the writ petition

needs to be dismissed.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is noted that

there is no dispute to the fact that the advertisement issued in the month

of November 2011 for making appointments to various posts including

Junior Parliamentary Interpreter (English/Hindi) did contemplate

prescribing minimum qualifying marks on the website before the written

examination is conducted. The first stage of the examination i.e the

Oration Test was held on November 17-18, 2012. The result of the said

test was declared on November 21, 2012. Till this time, the petitioner

had no grievance, rightly so, as he had 50% marks in aggregate or

individually in both the papers i.e English and Hindi. The second stage

of examination i.e the written test was held on September 21, 2013. The

case of the respondents is that on March 19, 2013, notification was

issued for prescribing minimum qualifying marks with a clear stipulation

that there is no minimum qualifying percentage of marks in paper I

(objective type multiple choice answers) of written test. This

notification is disputed by the petitioner. Rather, the petitioner relies

upon the call letter dated September 4, 2013 wherein, it was mentioned

that minimum qualifying percentage of marks in the written examination

for the post of Junior Parliamentary Interpreter (English/Hindi) is 50%

for unreserved category of candidates. Question would be even, if the

notification dated March 19, 2013 was not issued, any prejudice has been

caused to the petitioner. The answer has to be "NO", as the petitioner

did secure 50% of marks in both (i) objective type multiple choice

answers; (ii) descriptive type, both in aggregate and individually,

accordingly, he was called for the SIT. It is at the stage of SIT, the

petitioner was found unsuccessful. The issue with regard to the manner,

in which, the results of the SIT were declared and thereafter the

interviews were conducted, raised by the petitioner in the present petition

is concerned, suffice to state that in terms of annexure P-6, each of the

successful candidates in the written test were informed much in advance,

the dates of training on SIT and the SIT itself and the interview would be

held on May 27, 2014, May 28, 2014 and May 29, 2014 and on May 30,

2014 respectively. I note, that the stand of the respondents with regard

to the conduct of the SIT and the interview from May 28th to May 30th

2014, in para 6 under reply to brief facts at running page No. 76 of the

paper book has not been controverted by the petitioner except stating that

"the act of the respondents in making a material change in the marking

system in the midst of the exam and by lowering the minimum standards

for qualification indicates arbitrariness, probable foul play and prejudice

to the merit based candidates. The respondent has failed to explain the

basis of introducing the material change in qualifying standards.

Further, the manner in which the interviews were conducted is non-

transparent and making private calls to select few candidates showing

lack of transparency". The petitioner did not respond to the specific

averment made by the respondents that they had informed all the

candidates, who appeared in the SIT on May 28-29, 2014 would be

informed over the phone of the results which included the petitioner.

14. Insofar as reference is made to the case of Remya Ramesh by

relying upon the notification dated September 19, 2013 is concerned,

suffice to state, perusal of page 40 of the paper book, it is noted, the

same relates to different post and not the Junior Parliamentary

Interpreter, whose selection has been challenged by the petitioner,

herein.

15. On the aspect of anomaly in the marks as shown in the mark sheet

given to Satish Kumar Sharma and the consolidated mark sheet is

concerned, in view of the stand taken by the respondents in their reply, I

don‟t see any infirmity which would have a bearing on the ultimate

selection. It is not the case of the petitioner that three evaluators were

not associated with the SIT. In fact, I note in the appeal filed by Satish

Kumar Sharma, when the error came to be noticed, he was supplied with

the evaluation sheet of the other two evaluators and was also informed

that the marks obtained by the candidates were the average of the marks

awarded by the three evaluators individually. Insofar as the judgment of

the Supreme Court in the case of Tamilnadu Computer (supra) relied

upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same would

not be applicable to the facts of this case. In the said case, the challenge

was to the decision of the Government reducing the qualifying marks

from 50 to 35 marks was justified. The Supreme Court held that the

subsequent decision of the Government thereby changing qualifying

norms by reducing the minimum qualifying marks from 50% to 35%

after holding the examination and at the time when the result of

examination was to be announced as arbitrary and unjustified. The

Supreme Court by relying upon its own judgment reported as JT 2008

(4) SC 640 Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi wherein the

Supreme Court has held in recruitment process, changing rules of the

game during the selection process or when it is over, is not permissible.

In the case in hand, the advertisement itself contemplated the prescribing

of minimum qualifying marks before the written test. The said judgment

has no applicability in the facts of the case as it is the case of the

respondents that on March 19, 2013 notification prescribing qualifying

marks was issued which contemplated no minimum qualifying

percentage of marks in paper I of the written test. It is not the case of the

petitioner that any candidate who has secured less than 50% marks in the

paper-I exam has been selected. Further, as held above, no prejudice

has been caused to the petitioner. I do not see any merit in the writ

petition. The same is dismissed.

(V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE JULY 14, 2015/ak