ASHISH KUMAR Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Aman Dayal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel appeared for the respondent-SAIL.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment by fixing only 15% of full marks in the interview and further for quashing the decision of the respondent-authorities in the selection process whereby they have fixed total of 50 marks in interview, which comes to 50% of full marks fixed for written test.

(3.) As per the factual matrix of this case, one advertisement was published by the respondent-Bokaro Steel Plant being Advertisement No. BSL/R/2009-02 for filling up the posts of Medical Officers in different faculties. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner made an application under O.B.C. Category for consideration of his case to be appointed as Medical Officer (General), in which, around 300 candidates appeared in the written examination wherein the petitioner was declared successful and was called for appearing in the interview along with 19 other successful candidates. Thereafter, final result was published wherein ten candidates were declared successful for the post of Medical Officer (General) but the petitioner could not make it to the final. Being aggrieved with such action of the respondent-authority, the petitioner has made an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, seeking therein certain information from the respondent-authority. Pursuant thereto, it was informed that petitioner could obtain 80 marks out of 100 in the written examination whereas only 20 marks out of 50 in the interview. It is further stated that qualifying marks in the interview for General/OBC candidate was 25 and as the petitioner could not obtain the minimum qualifying marks, his name was not considered for final selection. It has further been stated that the petitioner has although obtained 80 marks in the written examination but has been disqualified by allotting 20 marks in the interview which according to the him is absolutely incorrect and contrary to the settled principle of the law. It has also been stated that qualifying marks for the candidates belonging to General and O.B.C. Categories has been fixed as 25 which according to him cannot be same because of the fact that in one of the advertisements issued by the Steel Authority of India as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, reserved category candidates were to be given relaxation in the prescribed qualifying marks for the written test, group discussion and the interview. Thus, the qualifying marks in the interview, which was fixed as 25 marks for both General and OBC category candidates is against the settled principle of law and as such the petitioner would have been declared successful since he has obtained 20 marks in the interview, which is 40% of the full marks fixed for the interview.