BHANU PARTAP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhanu Partap, an aspirant for being appointed as Sub Judge in Haryana, has filed this appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition wherein he has impugned the order rejecting his claim for appointment to the post. He had also sought mandamus to the respondents for his appointment as Subordinate Judge (HCS Judicial Branch).

(2.) The appellant was one of the three candidates, who had passed the written examination by obtaining 488 marks out of 900. He, however, could obtain only 20 marks in viva -voce and as such, failed to get appointment as he could not qualify in terms of Rule 8 of HCS (Judicial Branch) Rules. As per this rule, no candidate shall be considered to have qualified in the examination unless he obtains at least 50% marks in aggregate, which includes Viva -voce test. The appellant was denied appointment as he had obtained 49.8% in aggregate. His primary prayer in the writ petition was that the marks obtained be rounded off to make it 50%, it being a less by negligible fraction. In his support, the appellant has referred to the cases of Asha Mehta v/s. State of Punjab, 1993(3) SCT 237 P&H and State of Punjab and Anr. v/s. Asha Mehta : (1997)11SCC410 . In these cases, a view taken is that where a candidate is required to obtain 33% marks for passing and had obtained 32.5%, it could be taken as 33% and the candidate declared to have passed. Learned Single Judge, after noticing all the conditions, came to conclude that the appellant could not obtain 50% marks in aggregate and as such, could not be considered to have qualified for appointment to the post of a Judicial Officer and accordingly rejected his claim. That is how the appellant is in Letters Patent Appeal before us.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, by changing a stance a bit, would now urge that he did not get chance to make submission concerning the record which was called and perused by the learned Single Judge, as is seen from the impugned order. He also made an attempt to say that for the purpose of viva voce, the marks were to be awarded under four sub -heads, but the Interviewing Committee did not separately assess the appellant under these four sub -heads and as such the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In this regard, the counsel has referred to the case of Minor A.Periakaruppan v/s. State of T.N. and Ors. .