ARVIND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Awadh Narain Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Public Service Commission, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents and perused the record.

(2.) The petitioners before this Court have been applicants for the post of Medical Officer, Community Health Centre (Ayurvedic & Unani) in Other Backward Caste (for short 'OBC') and Scheduled Castes (for short 'SC') categories respectively, pursuant to the advertisement issued by Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission'). While they qualified amongst 1058 candidates to be screened out for the next stage, they were asked to submit offline application annexing therewith their requisite documents of eligibility for verification. After due verification, when call letters were issued by the Commission for interview, their names did not figure in that list, which consisted of 182 candidates in OBC category and 87 candidates in SC category respectively.

(3.) The challenge has been made to the act and conduct of the Commission on the ground that once screening test was held as per Claus-7 of the advertisement, in terms of Claus-14, that prescribes for minimum qualification marks for different categories of the candidates, in all 132 candidates had applied and petitioners were found to be eligible on the basis of verification of their documents, they could not have been denied participation in the interview. It is submitted, therefore, that adopting any other yardstick except the bench mark prescribed for under Claus-14 of the advertisement, the Commission was not justified in discriminating against petitioners in the matter of interview so as to deny participation to petitioners in the final selection process. It is thus, submitted that in spite of what has been given under the advertisement for the purposes of holding selection against the posts advertised, the Commission has changed the procedure prescribed for and has thus wrongly and in other words wholly illegally denied participation of the petitioners in the interview selection process. The procedure, having been thus adopted, being de hors the procedure prescribed was vitiated and petitioners, therefore, deserve to be allowed to participate in the interview process.