nxy rrWYm Tn’K1rT (\mYT‘D'T‘ A11 nT1rY/1rr‘rrwnt" V1111“; ALvvuuu ATWIY X“ [m hTY uLuL'LVL ‘C‘nr h u WP NQBB$ ) /:mm / Bhej€ndra Kumal 7 U/O Sh r1 Rajan SinGh Cast€ - Gand, bum vast.» vuxuiabl, gbvu Qhnu’r 911, vegrg R/r) ViHv Baima PS. Khadggmwall, Di$trict Koma (C.G.) PETFHO NEE {1” ,.¢~ n.” 1“ H~-J VERSUS n‘HL» Ar n1 L,vu<~«—AML Thronovh The Semwfgrv Dspartment of Gram Parich ayat Mantralaya D . KS. Buildmgh Raipur If" f"\ {wnvni k fMrrfHY Kn A H Fr} Parshu Ram , Vlllags Panchavat Baima, Vikas ”JLQHLL 1)1, f ._ g AxLLaubul’AQVa y/L ,_ J A. h Png? — Raphra Parke “m ‘trict — Kama (CG) Tahsael Menmdragarh. PreSidmlt Jim n .-1 ”NH; 1’ J (ALJLL16LJ cu. AxuALQ, R21kn n‘fhr-rih“ Vis5 Pmgident Janpad Panchayat Khadgawaii DiSt‘L— K0r€a (LG) rrkM, ,~ L kkkj AL~_~Lr”\n Lug cuii\u (Lek/UL LLUULLL A _ vearx F3 /n V1 11mm, Panchayat Baima, Vikas khand —rkhadganwan, Disrtict Kama (C.G.) ¥qnn9 Pmdrh “Hm? Khadganwan D1stric’; v Kama (C..G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/22 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. \p, 0/ HIGH COURT OF CHHA’IT‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3351 of 2003 PETITIONER : Bhojendra Kumar. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLggza/m OF THE CONS‘HTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble sm-i Satish k. AgEahBing. Present: Smt. Renu Kochar, Advocate for the peti’tioner. Shri AVShridhar Pane} Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 & 2 - Shri Ghanshyam 1;atel, Advocate for the respondent N0. 3. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 01$ day of April, 2010) The petitioner seeks a writ quashing of the merit list dated 30.08.2003 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner could not be selected on the post ofSamvida Shikshak, Grade III. According to the petitioner, the petitioner being a resident of Village Baima, Police Station Khadgawan. District Koria, pursuant to the advertisement, made an application for selection and appointment on the post of Samvida Shikshak, Grade III. After the selection process, merit list was prepared in which the petitioner’s name found place and thereaiter, he was called for interview. Since the petitioner was aliotted zero marks in the interview, the petitioner could not be selected and appointed on the aforesaid post. 3. The sole contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner has done very well in the interview and all the questions asked by the interviewers were replied properly, still the petitioner has been awarded zero marks. Thus, the entire select list mav be quashed. Per contra, Shri Shridhar, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and 2 submits that the awarding of marks in interview is exclusively for the interviewers. By making a selfsame [\J LL :mi.._y#.,,, 2 statement that the petitioner has replied to all the questions, it cannot be held that the petitioner was qualified and the marks allotted to the petitioner was wrong. None have chosen to appear on behalf of the respondent No. 4 to 7, despite service ofnotice. On perusal ofthe documents and consideration ofthe submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent N0. 1 to 3, and further response tiled by the respondent No. 7, it is found that the petitioner was awarded 33.33 marks on the basis of marks obtained in the Higher Secondary School, for Scout-Guide/NCC, 5 marks were awarded, for knowledge in local language, which was examined in the interview, zero marks was awarded. Accordingly, the petitioner in total was awarded 36.33 marks. In the final merit list, the petitioner was not selected. The contention ofthe petitioner that since the petitioner has replied all questions properly, the petitioner ought to have been awarded some marks, is without any basis and is frivolous. The interview was conducted for knowledge of local language i.e. Chhattisgarhi. The interviewers, alter using their wisdom have awarded zero marks to the petitioner for knowledge in local language. This is not for the court to substitute the decision of the interviewers or the expert bodies particularly, in case of interview when it does not appear to be unreasonable or discriminatory. Looking from all angles, the petitioner is berelt of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 1 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihou'i ’ Judge Amit