C.W.P. No.5124 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.5124 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.09.2011 Pankaj Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Canara Bank through its General Manager & Anr. ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Advocate for the respondents. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) Through the present writ petition, the selection made by the respondents for the post of Probationary Officers (JMGS-I) Post Code-2) has been challenged. While challenging the same, it is stated in the petition that on an information derived under the RTI Act, 2005, the petitioner secured 99% marks in written test and 40 marks in interview. Thus, the total marks calculated by the respondents as 42, is incorrect. As per the information provided by the Public Information Officer, the petitioner got 69.5 marks and the candidate who fell in the General Category, got 65.44 marks was selected. In fact, even a candidate who got 51.11 marks under the Scheduled Caste category was selected. C.W.P. No.5124 of 2010 2 Reply has been filed. It is contended that inadvertently, in the information supplied to the petitioner, the Public Information Officer did not mention that the total marks were to be calculated on the basis of 50% of Test TWS Marks (%) + 50% of interview marks. A chart showing the criteria for calculating total marks, marks secured by the petitioner in written test and interview and the minimum cut-off marks fixed for the General Category and Scheduled Caste Category has been placed on record. This Court is satisfied that the information given to the petitioner was incorrect as inadvertently, while calculating the marks, the correct formula on the basis of percentage was not applied. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner achieved 42 marks, whereas, the cut-off marks for final selection under the General Category was 65.44 marks and for Scheduled Caste category was 51.11. Thus, the petitioner has received less marks than the last selected candidate in the General Category. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 16.09.2011 JUDGE gurpreet