MARKANDEY RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who joined Indian Navy in 1976 for a period of 10 years and whose services were extended for 5 years for the purposes of rehabilitation and as per service norms of Naval Regulation/Navy was entitled to apply for Civil Job 12 months in advance, after having been permitted, applied for U. P. Nyaylk Sewa (Munsif) Examination, 1989 pursuant to an advertisement No. A-l/E-2/90-91, published in the Employment News dated June 23-29, 1990 (copy appended as Annexure No. 1) attaching clearance certificate from the competent authority stating that he can be released as per the norms. He was then in last year of his service. In terms of the advertisement in all 50 posts were available for appointment, out of which 4 were reserved for ex-servicemen. The Commission accepted his form but while issuing Admit Card to him directed him to deposit the Discharge Certificate of Army at the time of the examination. On 30.6.1991, he was discharged from service. He appeared in the said examination on October 22, 1991, handed over his Discharge Certificate (Annexure No. RA-1) to the Controller of Examination. However, he was not called for the interview. Result of the written examination was declared but his name did not figure amongst the successful candidates. The petitioner approached the Enquiry counter of the Commission and learnt that he has secured 408 marks. His further case is that large number of candidates belonging to his category, namely, ex-servicemen category, who were having lesser marks than him, were called for the interview by the Commission. He submitted a representation giving roll number of eight such candidates and the marks obtained by them (copy Annexure No. 2). The Officers of the Commission informed him that since Interview has already taken place, therefore, nothing can be done. As some candidates who had secured lesser marks than him were declared successful and thus he is grossly prejudiced. He has no other alternative and efficacious remedy than to move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Originally he came up with the prayer, namely, that the respondents be commanded to call him for interview and thereby judge his suitability for final selection.

(2.) On 3.2.1993 Sri V. M. Sahai, learned counsel accepted notice on behalf of the Commission-Respondent No. 2. The learned standing counsel accepted notice on behalf of the State-Respondent No. 1. Two weeks time was granted to file counter-affidavits.

(3.) Counter-affidavit was filed by the Commission stating, inter alia, that since the petitioner was discharged-more than six months after the last date of receipt of the application and as such Commission had cancelled his candidature in regard to ex-servicemen category and treated him as a general candidate who, as obtained marks below the criterion fixed concerning general category candidates, failed to qualify for the interview.