(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court challenging the result dated 16.03.2013 (Annexure P -2) passed by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission for the post of Pharmacist.
(2.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had, as per the criteria as laid down by the Commission, got 34.14 marks in the academic qualifications, but has been intentionally given lesser marks i.e. 10 in the viva -voce, so that she could not be selected which total comes to 44.14 marks. As per the information supplied to the petitioner, the candidate who has been selected and has got the highest marks has secured 49.92 marks and the candidate with the lowest selection marks has secured 48.94 marks. Counsel contends that since the petitioner had a brilliant academic record and had secured much higher marks than the selected candidates in the academic qualifications, the conclusion which can be drawn is that the petitioner has been intentionally given lesser marks in the viva -voce, so that she is not selected. He, however, fairly concedes that there is no pleading or any assertion or information with the petitioner that the selection committee had, in any manner, intentionally granted higher marks to the candidates who have been selected and lesser marks granted to the petitioner. He asserts that merely because the petitioner has got lesser marks in the viva -voce, she is of the opinion that she has been wronged against. He accordingly prays for setting -aside the result dated 16.03.2013 (Annexure P -2).
(3.) MERELY because the petitioner has been granted lesser marks in the interview cannot be a ground for setting aside the selection where the criteria laid down by the selection committee, envisages educational qualification marks and viva -voce. The criteria is not under challenge nor are there any allegations that the selected candidates have been allocated higher marks in the interview intentionally, so that they are selected, whereas the petitioner has been granted lesser marks to oust her. Mere apprehension on the part of the petitioner cannot be a ground for interference in the selection. In the absence of any allegation of malafide, the prayer as has been made on the basis of the pleadings in the present writ petition cannot be accepted.