1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3992 OF 2009 (Shri Vijay s/o Mujaji Sakhare vs. The State and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S. Ahirkar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1. Shri A. Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4. --------- CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND P.B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : JULY 19, 2010 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to appoint him on the post of Peon in the District Court, Wardha on the basis of the total marks secured by him in the examinations conducted by the Advisory Committee. There is no dispute that the petitioner secured 36 marks, which were more than the last 2 candidate selected by the Advisory Committee constituted under Chapter XXXI of the Civil Manual. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 have filed reply- affidavit and in paragraph (3) thereof, they have stated thus : “(3) The grounds of objections raised by the petitioner in respect of the selection process are ill- founded and are not in accordance with the advertisement, which was issued for selection of candidates. As per the advertisement, the candidates, who had applied for the post of Peon had to undergo a screening test, which was a written test. It was made clear by the advertisement that those candidates, who passed in this examination would be then called for further tests, which were activeness and clearing test, which would consist of 10 marks. The advertisement made it further clear that all those passed in this examination would be then called for interview and it is only those, who have cleared all examinations, would be selected on the basis of their total marks. The purpose of holding three separate examinations/tests was to ensure that the candidates are fit in every way. The petitioner appeared for the screening test and obtained 30 marks. Having passed the examination, he was called for the second test, which was activeness and cleaning test. In this, he secured 06 marks out of 10 and was, therefore, called for oral interview. In the oral interview, the 3 petitioner received zero marks. It is submitted that all candidates, who received zero marks in the oral interview, were dropped and not considered for selection. Only those candidates who had qualified in all the three tests were shortlisted and then selected as per the total marks obtained by them. Hence, the qualification for selection was not only total marks, but also the requirement that the candidate should pass in each of the tests independently. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 submit that this is in accordance with the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Court and it is on this basis that the selections have taken place.” We have perused the Civil Manual. There is no dispute that the Civil Manual provides that final selection should not be made without interviewing the candidates. So far as petitioner is concerned, in the interview, he secured zero mark and, therefore, the Advisory Committee has rejected his candidature. Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that non- consideration of the total marks secured by the petitioner for determining the overall merit was wrong and illegal. He submitted that the marks obtained in the interview cannot be the sole criteria 4 for selection. In other words, he submitted that merely because the petitioner was given zero mark in the interview, does not mean, his candidature deserves to be rejected outright. The Committee still, on the basis of the total marks secured, could have selected him. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab and others (AIR 2001 SC 152). We find lot of difference between the case in hand and the case relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions. The Supreme Court in Praveen Singh's case, has observed that recruitment should not be on the basis of viva voce test only. Further, it was observed that, in the event, the interview was the sole criteria and the written test being treated as qualifying test, then it ought to have been made clear that upon completion of the written test, selection would be made on the basis of the viva voce test only. In the present case, the marks secured in the interview were not the sole criteria for selection. The requirement was that the candidate should pass 5 all the three tests including interview and then, he would be selected on the basis of his total marks. This was made clear in the advertisement. Since the petitioner secured zero marks in the interview, his candidature was not considered by the Advisory Board consisting of District Judge as Chairman and Ad hoc District Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judge, Senior Division as its members. The petitioner has not attributed any malafides to the Committee for awarding zero marks in the interview nor has he made any grievance about the procedure adopted by the Committee for selecting candidates for the post of Peon. The contention urged that the marks secured by the petitioner in other tests, while determining the overall merit, ought to have been taken into consideration overlooking the zero marks given in the interview, in our opinion, must be rejected. It is well settled that a Selection Committee, such as one in the present case, clothed with the power of selection and appointment ought to be left unfettered in adaptation of procedural aspect as long as it is fair play. In the circumstances, we do not find anything wrong or any illegality in the method or the 6 procedure adopted for selection of the candidates based upon the provisions of the Civil Manual. Hence, this petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj