Avunuri Sujatha vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1512 Tel

     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

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

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

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

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

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