RAMAGYA CHAUBEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. D. Shahi, J. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of man damus commanding the respondents to declare the petitioner as successful can didate for the post of Sub- Inspector (D. R.) in Civil Police.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, Ramagya Chaubey was working as a constable in the police department from 1982. In the year 1991, like earlier years, there was an advertise ment for direct recruitment of Sub-Inspec tors. THE application forms and the book let attached with the application forms were sold for Rs. 10. THE candidates had to apply on application forms and had to appear in the examination on the terms and conditions contained in the booklet. THE terms and conditions and requisite qualifications etc. were contained in the said booklet, copies of which are annexed as Annexure 1 to this writ petition. THE petitioner applied for the said post. His roll number was 24520. THE petitioner ap peared in the pre-examination and was declared successful. His physical examina tion took place in the first week of January, 1993 and he was declared successful. THEreafter, main examination took place on 8-1-1993 and 9-1-1993. THE subjects in the examination were essay, general studies Part-I, general studies Part-11 and psychology and each paper contained 100 marks. This examination took place in terms and conditions of the brochure An nexure 1 to the writ petition. Sub sequently, the result of the main examina tion was declared on 19 -. 7-1993 and the petitioner was declared failed. On enquiry he was informed that although he had ob tained more than 76 per cent marks but since he had obtained less than 40 per cent marks in Hindi essay, therefore, he was declared unsuccessful. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ peti tion and by the orders of this Court dated 28-9-1993 and 16-12-1993, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the interview. It is alleged that in the interview, the petitioner was neglected because he had obtained an order from the Hon'ble High Court. THE petitioner has alleged that his aggregate marks were more than that of other selected candidates. He could not have been declared successful because he had obtained marks less than 40 per cent in one paper. It is contended that there was no such bar in the advertisement or in the terms and conditions of the examination and the respondents imposed this condi tion out of their own will.

(3.) THE main argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents was on the basis of the Notification of 1986, a copy of notification of 1986 dated 10-7-1986 is also on record. In this notification there was also a reference of notifications dated 6-6-1977, 25-2-1978 and 30-4-1979. THErefore, it is clear that while reading the notification dated 10-7-1986, these earlier notifications were also to be read. This notification of 1986 was squarely for train ing in the year 1987 and no further. In the notification of 1986 there is a specific provision in para 13 for written examina tion and it was made obligatory that the candidate should get 40 per cent minimum marks in each of the papers and his ag gregate should not be less than 50 per cent.