K SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri P.Ravi Shanker, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.V.Uma Devi, representing Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. None appeared for the 5th respondent.

(2.) IN response to the advertisement issued by the 2nd respondent -Bharath Dynamics Limited (BDL), Hyderabad on 09 -12 -2013, the petitioner applied for the post of Management Trainee (Finance). The requisite qualifications for the post are a pass in final examination of Chartered Accountant or ICAI or a Post Graduate Degree in MBA (Finance) with minimum aggregate marks of 55% for SC and ST candidates. The post is reserved for ST category and the petitioner belongs to Lambada community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner submitted application online and he was issued admit card. A written test was conducted on 18 -01 -2014 online. The results of the written test were published on 23 -01 -2014 and the cut off mark for the ST candidates for the purpose of selection was stated to be 85. As per online information, the petitioner secured 102 marks in the written examination conducted online out of 150 marks and he was hoping to get selection as he secured the highest marks in the written examination. He was called for interview on 08 -02 -2014 and attended the interview. He fared well in the interview, which was conducted by a 5 -member interview board. The petitioner was hoping that as he secured 102 marks in the written examination even if he gets less marks in the interview he was sure to get appointment. He submits that to his utter surprise when he saw the list of selected candidates on the website of the 2nd respondent -BDL, he could not find his name and that the 5th respondent was selected in ST category for the post of Management Trainee (Finance). When the petitioner enquired the 2nd respondent -BDL, he came to know that the 5th respondent was selected under ST category though he got far less marks than the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the entire information in respect of the marks obtained by him and also in respect of the other candidates including the selected candidate i.e. the 5th respondent (Puvva Chandrakanth). The 2nd respondent -BDL furnished the information to the petitioner which shocked him as the person who got far less marks in the written test was awarded higher marks in the interview and was shown as selected. The details are given as below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_99_LAWS(APH)12_2014.htm</FRM>

(3.) THE petitioner submits that it is mentioned in the advertisement that one should get minimum of 60% marks in respect of OCs, 50% marks in respect of SCs and STs in the written test to qualify themselves for further selection. But, nowhere it is mentioned that one should get more than 50% marks in the interview. It is further submitted by him that no such rule exists in respect of the recruitment procedure in any organisation and for the first time a novel method was introduced by the respondents -organisation only to see that candidates of their choice would be selected by depriving the fair chances of meritorious candidates who secured higher marks in the written test. Nextly, it is submitted that the said procedure is unknown to law and in usual parlance even a candidate gets far less marks in the interview if he secured good marks in the written test, the aggregate of both has to be taken into consideration and the candidates who secured higher percentage of marks will be automatically selected without there being any condition that one should secure certain minimum marks in the interview.