DEEPAK SINGH YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner Mr. Deepak Singh Yadav, who had applied for the post of Junior Scientific Assistant as an OBC candidate with the respondent No.2/Central Pollution Control Board. On behalf of the petitioner, claim is laid to appointment to the subject post including by setting aside the selection of the successful candidates to respondent No.2 on the following grounds urged before me:-

(2.) THE first argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is of wrong weightage being given to the interview marks by not proportionally reducing the said marks as was done to the marks of the written test. To appreciate this argument, certain facts are required to be understood. The total marks which were to be taken for the post were 100 marks of which 60 marks were for the written test and 40 marks were for the interview. The written test which was given however was not of 60 marks but was of 100 marks. Accordingly, the marks taken on a scale of 100 marks were to be reduced to the scale of 60. Petitioner received 49 marks in the written test of 100 marks and, therefore, on a weightage when taken as total of 60 marks against 100, petitioner was given 29.4 marks i.e. 49 of 100 is equal to 29.4 of 60. Petitioner has no quarrel with this. Petitioner argues that marks for the interview should also be scaled down from 40. I have really failed to understand this argument because where does arise the question of scaling down the interview marks of 40 when the total marks for interview are also 40 itself. The need felt for scaling down the marks of the written test was because weightage to the written test was 60 out of the total marks of the post at 100 and since the written test was of 100 marks and not of 60 hence there was requirement of scaling down the scale from 100 to 60. The interview marks continued to be 40 out of the total of 100 for the post and therefore there was no need of scaling down the marks of the interview. This argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is, accordingly, misconceived and rejected.

(3.) THE last argument urged on behalf of the petitioner was that since as per reply to RTI query the panel was valid for one year whereby if the first person who is appointed leaves the service within one year, and as the respondent No. 2 left the services of respondent No. 1 within one year on 20.07.2012, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed. Respondent No.2 was appointed on 29.8.2011 however respondent No. 1 has stated that the services of respondent No. 2 were terminated on 15.10.2012 due to misconduct. Therefore the respondent No.2 worked for more than one year after his appointment. Respondent No. 1 has stated that respondent No.2 had sought resignation from services vide letter dated 20.7.2012, however, that resignation was not accepted and instead respondent No.2 was terminated from services on 15.10.2012. In view of the above facts, it cannot be argued that the respondent No.2 worked for less than one year. Petitioner hence cannot be appointed to the post.