KEERAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ravi Babulkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, has questioned the prescription of a minimum marks for the oral examination as a condition of eligibility for appointment.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 30th October, 2003 inviting applications for appointment of Lecturer in various subjects in various Government Inter Colleges located in the State of Uttarakhand. THE petitioner belonging to a Scheduled Tribes category, applied for appointment as a Lecturer in mathematics. It transpires that a screening written test was conducted by the Commission, in which, the petitioner was found to be successful and, thereafter, the Commission issued a call letter dated 8th September, 2005 inviting the petitioner to appear before the interview board. THE petitioner appeared and, thereafter, the petitioner came to know that a select list of two persons from the Scheduled Tribes candidates was prepared which was forwarded by the Commission to the appointing authority. Based on the said list, the two candidates so selected were duly appointed. THE petitioner, being aggrieved, by the non-inclusion of his name in the select list has preferred the present writ petition questioning the procedure adopted by the Commission in the selection process.

(3.) IN the light of the aforesaid provisions, Shri Ravi Babulkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though there was no provision for holding a written examination, nonetheless, the petitioner appeared and qualified in the written examination and, thereafter, was called for the interview. IN the interview, the Commission was required to prepare a list in the order of proficiency as disclosed by the marks obtained by each candidate and that the respondents had no jurisdiction or power to delete the name of the petitioner from the said list on the ground that the petitioner has not obtained the minimum cut off marks in the interview since there is no cut off marks prescribed under Rule 15 of the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the language employed under Rule 15 is clear and simple and if the procedure is required to be done in a particular manner, the same should be done in the same way and, that the Commission had no jurisdiction to adopt a method by bringing into a picture a cut off mark in the interview in gross violation of Rule 15 of the aforesaid Rules.