Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1835 (HP)

PawanKumar Thakur v. Y. S. Parmar University

2011-03-30

RAJIV SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT : Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondents No. 2 to 4 to the post of Field Assistant. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-University issued two advertisements whereby applications were invited to filling up the posts of Field Assistant. Petitioner submitted application for considering his candidature pursuant to which he was called for written test on 8.3.2009. He qualified the same, which led to call letter for interview on 25.6.2009. The result was declared on 30.6.2000. Name of the petitioner was not recommended by the Selection Committee. Respondents No. 2 to 4 were selected and appointed as Field Assistants in the respondent-University. 2. Mr. Bimal Gupta has strenuously argued that the selection of respondents No. 2 to 4 is illegal, arbitrary, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to him, though his client has secured 65 marks out of 75 marks in the written test, he has been given only 8 marks out of 25 marks in the interview. He then contended that the candidates, who have secured more than 60 marks, have been allotted proportionately less marks in the interview. He lastly contended that respondents No. 2 to 4 have been given undue benefit by granting them higher marks in the interview. 3. Mr. Onkar Jairath and Mrs. Ranjana Parmar appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3 have supported the selection of respondents No. 2 to 4. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has participated in the selection process by appearing in the written test on 8.3.2009. He was called for interview on 25.6.2009. Respondent-University has prescribed total 100 marks to adjudge the suitability of the candidates to the post of Field Assistant. 75 marks have been provided for written test and 25 marks for interview. Petitioner has secured 65 marks in the written test and he has been given 8 marks in the interview. The Court has seen the academic qualification of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondents No.2 to 4. It cannot be held that the petitioner had extraordinary merit vis-à-vis candidates, who have been selected for the post in question. Respondents No.3 and 4 have passed the matriculation examination securing first division. Respondent No. 2 has secured 51.36% marks though he was also graduate. The Court has seen the academic qualification of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondents No.2 to 4. It cannot be held that the petitioner had extraordinary merit vis-à-vis candidates, who have been selected for the post in question. Respondents No.3 and 4 have passed the matriculation examination securing first division. Respondent No. 2 has secured 51.36% marks though he was also graduate. Petitioner has secured 56.14% marks in the matriculation. Petitioner has not alleged any mala fide against the Selection Committee. Rather, he has not made the Selection Committee as party. The main contention of the petitioner is that the candidates who had secured more than 60 marks have been granted less marks in interview. The Court is of the considered view that merely the candidates had secured more than 60 marks, have been given proportionately less marks, will not vitiate the selection process. It will depend on the performance of each candidate in the interview. The marks allotted in the interview are not disproportionate to the written test. Merely 25 marks have been carved out for interview out of 100 marks. 6. Consequently, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.