STATE OF U P Vs. RAMAGYA CHAUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above three appeals are knit together by common questions of law and fact and hence for convenience sake, they have been taken up for disposal by a composite Judgment.

(2.) Special Appeal Nos. 240 of 99 and 410 of 99 stem from an order of the learned single Judge thereby allowing Civil Misc. writ petition No. 44649 of 1993 on the lines of judgment rendered in Civil Misc. writ petition NO. 24976 of 1993, Ramagya Chaubey v. State of U. P. and others, validity of which has come to be canvassed in Special Appeal No. 387 of 1998. The disputation pertains to recruitment to the posts of Sub-Inspector Civil Police, numbering 630-570 (male) and 60 (female) vide advertisement dated 4.10.91 (annexured as Annexure-1 to the affidavit in support of the stay application) as amended vide notification dated 26.10.1991. According to the initial advertisement, 525 vacancies were publicised out of which 475 were earmarked for male candidates and 50 for female candidates but the initial advertisement was subsequently modulated which made an accretion of 105 more vacancies as a consequence of which the number of vacancies to be filled by male and female candidates rose to as high as 570 and 60 respectively. It brooks no dispute that the recruitment is not circumscribed within any statutory service rules and as per the advertisement, it was to be made on the basis of written examination preceded by a preliminary test which was held on 28.6.1992 and by physical test held between January 4 and January 9. 1990. In all 36353 candidates applied for recruitment to the posts in question but as a result of screening by means of preliminary examination and physical test, 4649 candidates appeared in the final examination the result of which was declared on 19.7.93. The final examination culminated in qualifying 723 candidates for interview (viva voce) test. The respondents in the two appeals secured enough marks in the aggregate in the final written examination but they were reckoned out of consideration for interview due to the reason that they failed to secure 40% marks in one of the subjects. As a sequel to it, the respondents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 for the relief of a mandamus commanding the respondents to declare them successful for the posts of Sub-Inspector. Civil Police on the premises that according to the advertisement, it was not essential for the candidates to secure 40% marks in each subject in order to qualify for interview. The learned single Judge held the view that the result of the final examination was to be declared on the basis of total aggregate marks irrespective of whether a candidate had secured 40% marks in each subject or not and accordingly. allowed the petition directing the appellants herein to declare the result of the writ petitioner attended with a command that he would not be declared unsuccessful "merely because he has not obtained 40% marks in one paper, i.e., in Hindi if he has been found otherwise fit and successful."

(3.) We have heard learned standing counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri C. B. Yadav, learned counsel representing the respondents. The question that surfaces for consideration is whether it was imperative for the candidates to have secured 40% marks in each subject in order to make way for interview. The learned standing counsel relied upon the Government Notification dated July 10. 1986 (Annexure-2 to the affidavit in support of the stay application) to enforce his submission that it was incumbent for the candidates to have secured 40% marks in each subject in order to qualify for interview. The notification on which the learned standing counsel has placed credence relates back to the selection of Sub-Inspector. Civil Police for training for the year 1986-87. The notification referred to, embodied specific provision that candidates had to secure 40% marks in each subject and a minimum of 50% in the aggregate. No such condition is stipulated in the advertisement dated 4.10.91 as modified by subsequent advertisement dated 26.10.91 pursuant to which the recruitment in question is sought to be made. The relevant provision of the advertisement reads as under : 'Ukta Parikshaon Me Safal ghoshit Abhiyarthtyon/ Abhiyarthini ko Sakshatkar hetu Amantrit Kiya Jayega. Yadi Safal Abhiyarthi/Abhiyarthini Adhik Sankhiya Me Hote Hain to Sakshatkar ke liye keval vahi Abhiyarthi/Abhiyarthini Bulayen Jayenge, Jinhone Pariksha me Adhiktam ank prapta kiya ho. Up Nirikshak. Nagrik Police ke jitne pad rikta honge, us sankhya ke lagbhag teen guna adhik Abhiyarthi Sakshatkar ke liye bulaye jayenge. Kist bhi dasha me asaphal Abhiyarthi sakshatkar me bulaye nahi jayenge. Sakshatkar me bulate samaye arakshan sambandhi Niyamo ka bhi poora dhyan rakha jayega."