MW; AFK aRH AT Qlg§PUR 5168 of 2008 F THE CONSTITUTION OF ’ Aqnihotri, 4 rs or the petitioner r La r the State/respondents 1 & 2 ( on nuary, 2010) -~»—— . hl tion of the respondent No. 3w r dated 25.1 0.2007 (Anneiure e s pt the petitioner are, that the reae n cegy, Chhattisgarh,‘ issuedian ais a . indi daily newspaper “Dainik . r posts. Pursuant to the said e , ie orzthe post of Translator and. i a a liticatipn as prescribed for the ao i l f r r equivalent qualitioation from ognz t i ni must be one of the subject. any recied Universiy in whch Hid Preference would be given to the candidate having knowiedgel ot’ Sanskrit and Law. According to the petitioner. he possessed the requisite qualification. The petitioner was calied for written , examination and atter qualifying the written exanmation, he was called for interview. Thereafter, on 12.05.2008X a Hst of seieded HfGH COURT OF CHHATTISG WRIT PETITION (S) N10. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22§ O INDIA l SB: Honble Shri Satlsh K Pefent: Shn Uttam Pandey, Advocate f Shi N N Ray, Pane! wyer fo ORAL ORDER Passed 13‘" day of Ja 1 v Calenge in this petition is to the selec 5 made pursuant to the advetisement P11). 2. The facts, in brif, a rojeced by Dictort of Cuiture ad Arhoto dvertement dted 25.102007 in H Bhaskar' for appointment on vaious advrtisement, the petitioner appld f Reserch Assistnt. The requisite gua bve sad posts was Bacheor o Ats o i PETITIONER : Jhal singh Patel. VERSUS I RESPONDENTS : State of Chhatisgarh & Others cangidates was pubhshed in the notice board of the respondent , pi} the name of the petmLner did not fi r fited an apphcatlon under the 2605 and sought certain oandidates depiartment in which nd mace. l Bemg aggrieved the petmo projwsions of Right to information Act the selection process and the process from the respondent I e no information was supplied to me petrttoner, the - ater on informatlon with regard to f i o appeared in the selection attithorities. Sine betore the A,ppeltate Authority. L petitioner fiied an appeai Public information Officer (for stime information was suppiied by that the PIO, the petitioner again tiled ‘an appeal beforethe information Commissioner, but tiiipd'ate; nothi being unsatisfied with the intonnation supplied by : shon ‘the PIO’). On Chief earing for the petitionet subm e been selected on the postiof ondent No. 3 to 5, who ha Research, Ass petitioner The petitioner also n9 has been done. 1 Leamed counsel app its that the istant and Translator possess less qualification than the is graduate in Hindi and Sanskrit and; he us the petitioner ought to have and he shoutd have possess the degree of Law Th been given preference over other candidates been selected for the posts as aforestated Shri Pandey further ven his postal address in a submits that the respondent No 3 has gi , manner which Wou of the selection Id influence the members committee earned Panel Lawyer appearing for the Stateirespondeints 1 and 2 submits that th been dpne in e whole selection process has is no infirmity or iiiegality accordance with law and there 5. Shri Roy l tin the , pfefefenGe W35 gIVen to - l selection process It is further submitted that knowledge in the candidates who had x sanskrit and Law Thete was j ‘ no'specit‘ic requirement of having degree in the aforesaid subjects. _ Thus, the contention of therpetitione is meless and frivolous. pleadings and documents'appended ithereto. 'i The grounds raised by the petitioner challenging the selection of the ._ ' respondents are not sustainable On perusal of the tabulation chart relating to marks awarded under various heads in respect of the post of Translator and Research Assistant (Annexure R/t), It Is very much ' ‘ heads and according to the total marks secured by them the selection“ list has been prepared Even otherwrse awarding of marks and ‘ assessrng ability of a candidate are done by the experts of the subiect ' i l or the respective field and the Court In normal circumstances, may: - , committee wherein the members are the specialists and experts tn r ‘ their own field and subjects JOn perusal of the documents it appears that a candidate havmg“ 'knowiedge of Sanskrit and Law would be given preference There Is; no prescription of havrng any degree in Sanslmt or Law A merit list was prepared by the selection committee is produced and marked as Annexure Rl1 it is found that the petitioner has been granted 6 marks ,r out of 10 marks for havmg knowledge in Sansknt and Law the, I respondent No. 3, ,4 andv5 have been granted 4 marks each forrhaving knowledge in Sanskrit and Law in total out of 100 marks the ; [petitioner obtained 12 marks respondent No 3 obtained 41 marks respondent No 4 obtained 54 marks and the respondent No 5 _ i l ’ clear that the candidates have been awarded marks under various i not interfere wrth the proceedings and the recommendations of such V l have heard teamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the \ 4 5i \ obtained 14 mafks. Aocordingly, a list‘was prepared and the ‘ irespondents were rightly selected for ppcintment §The Supreme Coutt, in Union of India & anether Iv. S.K.Goel & €Othets‘, observed as under: 1 “in our opinion, the judgmejnt af the Tribunal does not call for any interference inasmuch as it folIOWed the well-settled dictum of service jurisprudence that t there will ordinarily be nd interference by the courts ' of iaw in the proceedings and recommendations of 1 DPC uniess such DPC n'ieetings are held illegally or in gross violation of the rules or there is miegrading of confidential reportsi ln the present case,_DPC had“ : made an overall assessment of all relevant confidential reports of the eligible officers who were being considered. DPC 'oonsidered the remarks of the reviewing officers. Thfere was clear application of mind. Respondent 1 did fulfil the benchmark. Hence, " the impugned direction ofrthe High Court ought not to a have been issued as the? same will haVe the impact of causing utter confusion and chaosvin the cadre of r the Indian Revenue Service and the Customs and Central Excise Service.” Applying the well settled principles of law to me face of the case and for the reasons stated herelnabove, the writ petition is dbmlssed at the motion stage itself. ln view of the above, Applying the well settled principles of law toithe iT H ;Sf(i.ti'sh K. Agnihotri 'Judge " " facts of the case, the petition i (2007) 14390641 @ . l ‘ ~ i é l