VIKAS PAREEK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment delivered by a learned single Judge of this court in W.P.(C) No. 6555/2007 on 19.08.2009. By virtue of the impugned judgment the petitioners writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that although he had applied for the post of Executive Trainee-XIII Batch (IT) in pursuant of an advertisement issued by the respondent No.2 dated 28.02.2007, he was not selected despite the fact that he secured more marks in the aggregate of the written test and the interview than some of the selected candidates. The main grievance of the petitioner was that he had not been selected on the ground that he had not obtained the minimum qualifying marks in the interview which comprised of a personal interview and group discussion. It is his case that there is no minimum qualifying mark prescribed in the advertisement and the minimum marks of 40% of the interview which came to 6 marks out of the total of 100 marks was stipulated only after the selection process had begun and that too after the written examination had been conducted.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/petitioner submitted that the learned single Judge has gone wrong by placing reliance on clause 4 of the general information contained in the advertisement dated 28.02.2007. THE said clause 4 reads as under:- 4. Management reserves the right to raise the eligibility standards in case the applicants are in very large number. THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that this clause does not apply at all inasmuch as it relates only to the eligibility standard prior to the start of the selection process. It has no applicability once the selection process has started. It was also submitted that the minimum marks that have been prescribed for the interview in this case cannot be equated with the question of raising the eligibility standard. In any case, she contended, it has not been urged on behalf of the respondents that because there was a very large number of applicants therefore the minimum percentage has been prescribed for the interview. Consequently, she submitted that the impugned judgment ought to be set aside and the petitioners prayer ought to be allowed in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2008) 3 S.C.C. 512, Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi: (2008) 7 S.C.C. 11 and Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi & Anr. (2010) 3 S.C.C. 104.

(3.) WE have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have also examined the documents on record.