PANKAJ DIXIT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE High Court of Madhya Pradesh issued an advertisement (Annexure p-1) inviting applications for 20 posts in the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial service to be filled up by direct recruitment from the Bar. In the advertisement, it was stated that out of these 20 posts, 11 posts are for the candidates belonging to general category, three posts each are reserved for Scheduled Castes, scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes candidates. In the advertisement, it was also stated that if sufficient number of suitable candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/scheduled Tribes/other Backward Classes are not available, such posts shall be treated as unreserved. Sub-clause (iv) of Clause 9 of the advertisement stipulates that only such candidates will be called for interview as the High Court may decide, on the basis of valuation of their performance in the written examination. Sub-clause (vi) of Clause 9 of the advertisement states that candidates shall be selected on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by them in both the written examination and the interview.

(2.) IN response to the advertisement, the petitioner in W. P. No. 4604/2007 (S), who is an Advocate practicing at Bhopal and Jabalpur and who belongs to general category, applied and appeared in the written examination which was held on 17-12-2006. The petitioner in W. P. No. 4605/2007 (S), who is an Advocate practicing at Sehore and belongs to category of OBC also applied and appeared in the written examination on 17-12-2006. Both the petitioners, however, were not called for interview. They have filed the writ petitions for a declaration that the selection criteria adopted by the High Court is not in accordance with law and the criteria fixed and for a direction to the respondents to publish a fresh list of candidates and call sufficient number of candidates in each advertised category to face the interview.

(3.) MR. Naman Nagrath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both petitions, submitted that sub-clause (vi) of Clause 9 of the advertisement issued by the High Court clearly stated that the candidates shall be selected on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by them in both the written examination and the interview. He submitted that since the selection was to be on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by the candidates in both the written examination and the interview, the High Court was not right in calling only 15 candidates for interview on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination when as many as 20 posts had been advertised. He cited the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of U. P. Public Services Commission Vs. Subhash Chandra Dixit (AIR 2004 SC 163) in which it has been held that "aggregate marks" can only be considered to mean as the total marks finally obtained by the candidate after the complete valuation process is over. He vehemently argued that the candidates securing lower marks in the written examination may secure very high marks in interview and in such cases, the aggregate marks secured by the candidates in both the written examination and the interview may lead to their selection on the basis of their position in the final merit list. He submitted that the proper course for the High Court should have been to determine the number of candidates to be called for interview taking into consideration the number of vacancies advertised. He submitted that normally the number of candidates called for interview is twice the number of vacancies.