AMIT SAINI Vs. H. P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is founded on the apprehension that the other candidates would secure higher marks than the petitioner because of the advantage on account of the nature of questions, which were corresponding to similar information available on three blogs on Internet. However, it now transpires that the petitioner has secured higher marks than the other candidates and has been shown at serial No.1 Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? in the merit list (at the stage of screening). In that sense the challenge does not survive for consideration.

(2.) THE next ground urged before us is that although the vacancies to be filled up were only two in number, the Authorities have called nine candidates for three times the number of vacancies. It is submitted that the Authorities could have, at best, called six candidates (three times of the number of vacancies). It now transpires that the candidates at Sl.Nos.6 and 7 in the screening stage merit list, after interview have secured higher marks than the petitioner and have been placed at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2 of the final merit list of nine candidates. The petitioner cannot complain at least in respect of candidate at Serial No.6 in the list prepared at the stage of screening as he would have even otherwise been entitled to be invited for interview keeping in mind the fact that there were two vacancies available.