ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present writ application seeks quashing of final result published by the Allahabad Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) for appointment to the post of Probationary Officer in the bank declared on 23.06.2011. 3. Before I come to the main controversy involved in the matter, I consider it appropriate to refer to brief facts of the case. 4. Pursuant to advertisement dated 05.02.2011 (annexure-1), the petitioner had submitted his application for his appointment as Probationary Officer in Allahabad Bank as a candidate belonging to Other Backward Class category. There is no dispute that the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria as laid down in clause 1, 2 and 4 of the said advertisement in terms of age, minimum educational qualification etc. The selection process comprised written test and interview, as mentioned in clause-6 of the said advertisement. Since clause-6(A) and 6(B) of the said advertisement are at the centre of controversy in the present case, they are being quoted herein below:- “6. Selection Procedure: The selection process will comprise written test and interview. (A) Written Test: (i) The written test will comprise Objective Tests on (i) Test of Reasoning Ability, (ii) Quantitative Aptitude, (iii) General Awareness with special reference to Banking Industry, (iv) Computer Knowledge & (v) English Language (ii) The passing marks in each of the tests will be decided by the Bank on the basis of the performance of all the competing candidates taken together in each test to a minimum required level. Candidates have to pass in each of the Objective Test separately. Candidates are also required to score a minimum 40% cut-off (35% SC/ST/OBC) marks in aggregate to be considered for being called for interview. Bank reserves the right to vary cut-off marks. (iii) There will be separate cut-off marks for reserved category candidates with relaxed standards. (iv) Other details regarding the written test will be given in the „information booklet which will be available in the Banks website alongwith the Call Letter for the Written Test. Note: There will be negative marks for the wrong answers in the Objective Tests. (iii) There will be separate cut-off marks for reserved category candidates with relaxed standards. (iv) Other details regarding the written test will be given in the „information booklet which will be available in the Banks website alongwith the Call Letter for the Written Test. Note: There will be negative marks for the wrong answers in the Objective Tests. (B) Interview: Depending upon the number of vacancies only a certain number of candidates from among those who qualify by ranking sufficiently high in merit on the basis of aggregate marks in the written test will be called for the interview. The candidate has to secure minimum passing marks in the interview.” 5. The petitioner participated in the written examination held on 17.04.2011 and was declared successful. He was invited to appear in the interview held on 08.06.2011. It is the petitioner’s case that he performed well in the interview also and had, therefore, a legitimate expectation that he would be finally selected. His name, however, did not figure in the merit list of successful candidates as published by the Bank on its website on 23.06.2011. The petitioner, thereafter, invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 sought for the details as regards the marks secured by him subject wise, his rank in the written examination, cut-off marks of the written examination, cut-off marks of the interview, cut-off marks of final selection and his rank in the final merit list. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that after much persuasion and repeated reminders the petitioner was provided with such information by a communication dated 05.11.2011, which is annexure-9 to the present application. It is the petitioner’s case that as per the information supplied to him under Right to Information Act, the petitioner secured 174 marks and the aggregate cut-off marks for final selection (written test+ interview) in OBC category was 171 and aggregate cut-off marks for final selection after release of wait list was 189 for general category, 168 for OBC category, 147 for SC category and 128 for ST category. It was indicated in the said communication that petitioner could not be selected as he did not secure the qualifying marks in interview for final selection. It appears from the said information provided by the bank dated 05.11.2011, as contained in annexure-9, that the petitioner had secured 12 marks in interview. 7. It was indicated in the said communication that petitioner could not be selected as he did not secure the qualifying marks in interview for final selection. It appears from the said information provided by the bank dated 05.11.2011, as contained in annexure-9, that the petitioner had secured 12 marks in interview. 7. The petitioner’s case in the present writ application is mainly and solely based on his claim that he could not have been disqualified from final selection on the ground that he secured less marks than the qualifying or passing marks fixed by the bank because the qualifying marks in interview was not disclosed in the advertisement, though for written test qualifying marks was disclosed. Heavy reliance has been placed upon judgements of Supreme Court reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 (K. Manjushree vs State of Andhra Pradesh & anr.), (2011) 7 SCC 308 (Barot Vijaykumar Balakrishna & Ors vs. Modh Vinaykumar Dasrathlal & Ors.), (2008) 7 SCC 11 (Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi) and (2011) 8 SCC 441 (P. V. Indiresan vs. Union of India & Ors) in support of this contention on behalf of the petitioner. 8. The main argument, which learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced in support of his case is that fixing minimum qualifying passing marks for interview, after initiation of process of selection, without disclosing it in the advertisement itself and without intimating the candidates prior to the dates of interview amounts to changing the terms of advertisement and it accordingly amounts to changing the process of selection in the midst of the selection. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent-bank. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that total marks for interview had been fixed as 45 and minimum passing marks for interview as 18 marks for general category and 15 marks for SC, ST and OBC categories and such relaxation in case of SC, ST and OBC categories has been given as per Government of India guidelines and prescribed in the bank’s recruitment policy. It has been stated, however, that eligibility/ qualifying criteria including minimum passing marks for interview had been prescribed in the bank’s recruitment policy itself, much prior to the issuance of the advertisement dated 08.01.2011. Emphasis has been laid on clause 6(B) of the advertisement which provides that a candidate has to be secure minimum passing marks in the interview. It has been stated, however, that eligibility/ qualifying criteria including minimum passing marks for interview had been prescribed in the bank’s recruitment policy itself, much prior to the issuance of the advertisement dated 08.01.2011. Emphasis has been laid on clause 6(B) of the advertisement which provides that a candidate has to be secure minimum passing marks in the interview. Since the petitioner could not secure the minimum passing marks in the interview, i.e., 15, therefore, his name did not figure in the list of successful candidates. Another counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent-bank dealing with averments made in an interlocutory application filed by the petitioner vide I.A. No. 5260/2013. It has been specifically denied in paragraph 6 that minimum qualifying marks/ passing marks for interview was fixed after the interview was over. In this regard relevant extract of the bank’s recruitment policy relating to the Probationary Officer has been quoted, which reads thus:- “B(iii) Interview Marks The interview will not have a weightage for more than 15% of the total marks. The maximum marks for written test is 300 and accordingly the maximum marks for interview will be 45 and qualifying marks for interview will be 40% i.e. 18. (Amended vide Board Resolution dated 17.04.2004 & 19.06.2007)” 10. It has been stated in the said counter affidavit that applying the Government guidelines, relaxation of 5% in minimum qualifying/ passing marks for interview of reserved categories has been given and for them such qualifying marks was fixed as 15. It is specific case of the Bank that no person in petitioner’s category, who secured less marks than the petitioner with less than 15 marks in interview has been declared successful and it has been stated that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by non disclosure of minimum qualifying marks in the advertisement itself. Learned counsel for the bank has relied upon a Supreme Court judgement reported in (2013) 7 SCC 737 (Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & anr. Vs. Tage Habung & Ors.) to submit that the bank was right in following the policy of the bank already existing, fixing the minimum qualifying marks for interview. 11. Learned counsel for the bank has relied upon a Supreme Court judgement reported in (2013) 7 SCC 737 (Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & anr. Vs. Tage Habung & Ors.) to submit that the bank was right in following the policy of the bank already existing, fixing the minimum qualifying marks for interview. 11. From the rival pleadings of the parties and submissions made on their behalf, the only legal issue which arises for consideration in the present writ application is as to whether a candidate could be disqualified from final selection on the ground of having secured less marks than the passing marks for interview, though no such passing mark was fixed in the advertisement inviting application. This issue has to be decided keeping in mind the fact that it was mentioned in the advertisement itself that a candidate will have to obtain the passing marks for interview for his final selection, though such passing marks was not disclosed in the advertisement. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Barod Vijaykumar Balkrishna vs. Modh Vinaykumar Dasrathlal (supra) has recorded in paragraph 38 as follows, on which much reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner:- “38 Now coming back to the facts of the case in hand, though the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution governing the selection process mandated that there would be minimum qualifying marks each for the written test and the oral interview, the cut-off mark for viva voce was not specified in the advertisement. In view of the omission, there were only two courses open. One, to carry on with the selection process and to complete it without fixing any cut-off mark for the viva voce and to prepare the select list on the basis of aggregate of marks obtained by the candidate in the written test and the viva voce. That would have been clearly wrong and in violation of the statutory rule governing the selection. The other course was to fix the cut-off mark for the viva voce and to notify the candidates called for interview about it. This is the course that the Commission followed. This was in compliance with the Rules and it did not cause any prejudice t any candidate either. We, thus, see no illegality at all in the selection process.” 13. This is the course that the Commission followed. This was in compliance with the Rules and it did not cause any prejudice t any candidate either. We, thus, see no illegality at all in the selection process.” 13. Their lordships of Supreme Court in that case were dealing with a situation where, though the rules required fixing of minimum qualifying marks for written test and oral interview, the qualifying marks for viva voce was not specified in the advertisement. In that case, cut-off marks was not fixed at the time of advertisement. In such situation the Supreme Court held that the other course which was open to the respondents was to fix cut-off marks for viva voce and notify it to the candidates called for interview about fixing of cut-off marks. In the present case cut-off marks was already fixed under the bank’s recruitment policy as has been asserted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the bank, veracity of which cannot be doubted. 14. Referring to the judgement of the Supreme Court reported in (2011) 8 SCC 441 ( P.V. Indiresan vs. Union of India), as noted above, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the qualifying marks should always be pre determined as has been noted above. It is the specific case of the respondents that the passing marks for interview was in fact predetermined and that it was not fixed after the advertisement, rather much prior to issuance of the advertisement and it was mentioned in the advertisement itself that a candidate would have to secure passing marks in the interview. The question now needs to be decided is as to whether non disclosure of the said predetermined passing marks for interview in the advertisement itself would vitiate the entire final result. 15. The judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi (supra), reliance upon which has been placed on behalf of the petitioner, is not applicable, in my opinion in the facts and circumstances of the case as fixing of minimum qualifying marks in viva voce by the respondents in the matter of recruitment to the post of Delhi Higher Judicial Service was held not be in accordance with the Supreme Court judgement in case of All India Judges Association vs. Union of India ( 2002 4 SCC 247 ). Paragraph 18 of the said judgement in the case of Hemani Malhotra (supra) is relevant in this regard and is being quoted hereinbelow:- “18. This court notices that in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India subject to the various modifications indicated in the said decision, the other recommendations of the Shetty Commission were accepted by this court. It means that prescription of cut-off marks at viva voce test by the respondents was not in accordance with the decision of this court. It is an admitted position that both the petitioners had cleared written examination and therefore after adding marks obtained by them in the written examination to the marks obtained in the viva voce test, the result of the petitioners should have been declared. As noticed earlier 16 vacant posts were notified to be filled up and only 5 candidates had cleared the written test. Therefore, if the marks obtained by the petitioners at viva voce test had been added to the marks obtained by them in the written test then the names of the petitioners would have found place in the merit list prepared by the respondent. Under the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the petitions filed by the petitioners will have to be accepted in part.” 16. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Bank, in support of his contention that there was no illegality in adopting the passing marks in the interview, as prescribed in the policy of the bank, while selecting a candidate finally for the purpose of appointment to the post of Probationary Officer, though it was not notified in the advertisement itself, has placed reliance upon an Apex Court judgement in the case of Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Tage Habung (supra). In that case the relevant rules authorized the Public Service Commission to fix minimum qualifying marks for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates for interview. The Supreme Court in that case, while upholding the action of the Commission to fix qualifying marks for interview held in paragraph 32 as follows:- “32. As noticed above, cut-off marks of 33% fixed as qualifying marks in all subjects for the purpose of interview cannot by any stretch of imagination be held illegal or unjustified merely because such criteria for securing minimum 33% marks was notified for the preliminary examination and main examination. As noticed above, cut-off marks of 33% fixed as qualifying marks in all subjects for the purpose of interview cannot by any stretch of imagination be held illegal or unjustified merely because such criteria for securing minimum 33% marks was notified for the preliminary examination and main examination. Rule 11 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Combined Civil Service Examination Rules, 2001 empowers the Commission to fix minimum qualifying marks for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates for interview. In our considered opinion the power exercised by the Commission under Rule 11 of the 2001 Rules fixing the qualifying marks in the written examination in the process of conducting the recruitment test cannot be interfered with by this court. We reiterate that there must be some yardstick to be followed by the Commission for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates after the written examination. The fixation of qualifying marks as 33% in the written examination cannot be held to be illegal or arbitrary action of the Commission merely because it was noticed in the process of conducting recruitment tests. It was argued from the side of the appellant Commission that the Commission has in the past conducted written examination fixing the cut-off marks in exercise of power under Rule 11 of the 2001 Rules. The High Court has lost sight of the fact that pursuant to the directions of the learned Single Judge in his order dated 30-9-2008, the result was declared applying the qualifying marks as notified in the O.M. dated 7.1.2008 and the same was adopted by the Commission.” 17. In my opinion, every case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts. In the present case, in the advertisement itself was mentioned that the candidates would be required to secure the minimum passing marks in the interview. The respondent-bank has brought on record the recruitment policy of the bank, according to which the maximum marks for written test was fixed as 300 and 15% marks for interview was fixed as 45. Qualifying marks in the interview was fixed as 40% of the maximum marks for interview, i.e., 18 for general category candidates. As has been noted above, as per counter affidavit, relaxation of 5% in the passing marks in interview for reserved categories candidates has been given, i.e., minimum passing marks in interview for OBC candidate was taken to be 15. Qualifying marks in the interview was fixed as 40% of the maximum marks for interview, i.e., 18 for general category candidates. As has been noted above, as per counter affidavit, relaxation of 5% in the passing marks in interview for reserved categories candidates has been given, i.e., minimum passing marks in interview for OBC candidate was taken to be 15. The petitioner secured 12 marks in interview. 18. This cannot be the petitioner’s case that the bank changed its recruitment policy by introducing qualifying marks for interview after commencement of selection procedure. Such policy was in vogue at the time of issuance of the advertisement. This is to be noted that for passing written test, a candidate was required to secure 40% cut-off marks in aggregate with relaxation of 5 % in SC, ST and OBC categories as per clause -6(A) (ii) of the advertisement. Same percentage of qualifying marks was adopted in the interview also. Such procedure, in my opinion, cannot be considered to be arbitrary, unreasonable requiring any interference by this court in the selection process. 19. Fixing a minimum bench mark for viva voce test has been approved by the Supreme Court in various judgements taking into account the importance and significance of viva voce for personality test to evaluate and adjudge the suitability of a candidate for a particular service. Interview is one of the effective modes of evaluating suitability of a candidate for his selection to a particular post. The Apex Court in case of Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajsthan and Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana commenting upon the importance of oral test held that it could evaluate alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgement, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. 20. In the present case it has been vehemently submitted that the maximum marks for written test was also not disclosed in the advertisement and such information was kept in closet of the bank and, therefore, selection process lacked transparency. This plea cannot be accepted. As per advertisement it was mentioned that a candidate would be required to secure 40% of the total qualifying marks in the written examination. It was also indicated that an aspirant will have to secure passing marks in interview for final selection. This plea cannot be accepted. As per advertisement it was mentioned that a candidate would be required to secure 40% of the total qualifying marks in the written examination. It was also indicated that an aspirant will have to secure passing marks in interview for final selection. Percentage of passing marks fixed in written test has been adopted by the bank as passing marks in the interview also. The petitioner cannot make a grievance that only because it was not mentioned in the advertisement, the entire selection process is vitiated. I am of the opinion that such procedure of the Bank adopted for the purpose of selection to the post of Probationary Officer pursuant to the said advertisement cannot be said to be unreasonable or lacking in bonafide. 21. In my opinion, the action of the respondents in fixing passing marks for interview in the facts and circumstances of the case does not amount to altering or substituting the eligibility criteria given in the advertisement. The decision of the bank to select only such candidates for the post of Probationary Officer, on the basis of advertisement in question, is based on the recruitment policy already in vogue. There is no material to reach to a conclusion that such decision is based on extraneous considerations. I do not find any irregularity in the process of selection on the basis that the passing marks for interview was not disclosed in the advertisement, though it was specifically mentioned that a candidate will have to secure passing marks in interview. I do not find any merit in this writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.