AMARJEET MALIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which falls for consideration in these two writ petitions is whether the respondent " Staff Selection Commission (SSC) could legitimately introduce a fresh criteria for qualifying the interview process i.e., 25% for unreserved category and 20% for other categories when no such condition of securing any cut off marks in the interview was laid down in the advertisement issued by the Commission which invited applications for recruitment to the post of Sub -Inspectors in CAPFs, Assistant Sub -Inspectors in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Examination 2012.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that the act of the respondents to introduce cut off marks in the interview was completely arbitrary and biased, as the law did not permit the respondents to change the rules of the game after the game, had started. The learned counsel representing the petitioners, have placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. and Anr., : JD 2008 (2) SC 437 and Himani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi, : JT 2008 (5) SC 640 in support of their contentions.

(3.) IT is an admitted case that the petitioners had qualified the written examination, PET as well as the medical examination. They had also appeared for the interview but were not selected in the final list because of not having secured the qualifying marks, as required for the interview. If the consolidated marks secured by the petitioners in the written examination and interview are taken into consideration, it could be seen that they had obtained top position in the list of selected candidates.