GOKARAN LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE called out. None appears for the appellant, nor there is request of pass over. The appeal is of the year 2003. We have gone through the record with the assistance of learned State counsel. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 21.10.2003, dismissed the writ petition of the appellant making a challenge to the action of the respondents, who allegedly selected him when the selection was held for the post of Forester but did not appoint him. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that in the selection for the post of Forester, a written examination was held in the year 1987. Thereafter, the interview was held in May, 1988 and the physical test was held in June, 1988. According to the appellant, he was selected but was not appointed, which gave a cause of action for approaching this Court in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge found that indisputably the merit list has been changed, but there was a valid explanation for the same. According to the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, the maximum marks for interview were allotted as 60, whereas under the U.P. Competitive Examination Allocation of Marks Rules, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, the total marks for the interview could not exceed more than 12.2% of the total marks, and it was because of this reduction in the interview marks that the appellant was not selected. The Court also took into consideration that the said Rules were enforced before the examination started and in case the Rules were already enforced, then 60 marks could not be kept for the interview but only 20 or less than 20 marks could be fixed for the interview. The learned Single Judge, therefore, found that there was no illegality in the impugned action of the respondent. The appellant cannot claim, as a matter or right, the issuance of appointment order on the basis of a merit list, which was prepared, when the maximum marks for interview were fixed as 60. Obviously, it was a mistake, as in the presence of the Rules aforesaid, only 20 or less than 20 marks could have been fixed for the interview. The selection had already taken place and for that written examination and interview were held. In the circumstances, therefore, if a decision was taken to reduce the interview marks from 60 to 20 uniformly, there was no good reason for the appellant to raise any grievance if his name did not find place in the select list of meritorious candidates, prepared finally on the basis of aforesaid decision. The other plea of the appellant that the persons, who had been rejected in the physical test have been selected, has been repelled by the learned Single Judge, as the notice in question only required that the physical test of only those candidates be taken who have come in the merit list and have not appeared in the physical test, and this does not mean that they were rejected in physical test. In view of above, we do not find any illegality in the order under appeal. The appeal has no force and is accordingly dismissed.