SHAMBHU PRASAD NAWANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) The petitioners had appeared in examination for the promotion to the E list in respect of Telecom Cadre held on 13th March, 2000. The petitioners state that the examination were held on the basis of the standing order No. 22/1995. The petitioners' further case is that on the basis of performance in the written test, the petitioners were found eligible and fit for appearing in the practical test which was conducted on 26/27th April, 2000 & thereafter the petitioners were allowed to appear in the interview on 29th April, 2000. Being unsuccessful in the overall result, the petitioners have challenged the non grant of promotion. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sub Major J.S. Randhawa vs. Union of India & others reported as 2000(5) SLR 387 which held that no requisite percentage of mark have been laid down for the interview in ITBP(Indo Tibetan Board Police) i.e. respondent No.2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Director General of ITBP had observed that failing in interview has no meaning at all because passing of the interview has now been done away in the all India Services examinations. It is also submitted that the Special Leave Petition filed against the above judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the writ petitioners were entitled to succeed. The case of the petitioners is that after taking into consideration the overall secured marks by the petitioners, they were was entitled to be promoted & an insistence upon minimum 40% marks in the interview was uncalled for & unsustainable. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the standing order dated 24th November, 1999 being the standing order No.8/99/1999, which according to him was relevant and applicable in the present case. This standing order provided as follows:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent states that in view of the standing order dated 24th November, 1999, which was not the basis of the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the candidate was required to secure minimum 40% marks in written, practical tests and interview.