DR.MANOJ KUMAR SINHA SON OF SRI TAPESHWARI PRASAD MALTIYAR Vs. SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 18/4/2014 Page 39 Srikant Das Versus State Of Bihar

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and Women Development Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Corporation. Petitioners were applicant for appointment on the post of District Project Manager in the Corporation, pursuant to advertisement (Annexure -1) close perusal whereof would indicate that 38 vacancies were notified for appointment and the applicants were called upon to apply giving detailed CV. Petitioners having submitted their CV were called to appear in the written test as also interview. It is submitted that out of total 38 vacancies 28 appointments have been made so far. 10. vacancies are yet to be filled up. Out of the 10 remaining vacancies 3 are general category vacancy to which the petitioners belong. It is submitted on their behalf that Advertisement (Annexure -1) did not indicate the manner of selection as only biodata CV was called for from the applicants later petitioners and other applicants were made to appear in a written test and interview of 50 marks each. These informations, petitioners have confirmed by obtaining information under the Right to Information Act (Annexure -6) as also from the result sheet (Annexure - 5).

(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that granting 50 marks each for interview as also for written test is arbitrary. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed on two judgments of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia V/s. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981. Supreme Court 487 paragraph -19 and over the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others V/s. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 454 paragraph 29. From perusal of the aforesaid two judgments it is evident that allocation of marks for interview should not exceed beyond 12.2% of the marks allocated for written test.