CWP No.16899 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16899 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.09.2010 Dhan Raj ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Kukar, Central Govt. Counsel, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, has challenged the order Annexure P-5, vide which while implementing the order passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.12554 of 2006 titled Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 14.12.2007, the petitioner was declared unsuccessful for being appointed as Sub Inspector. The case of the petitioner is, that his case has been wrongly rejected for appointment on the ground, that the petitioner did not get 50% of the aggregate marks in the written examination and interview. The petitioner has also challenged Clause No.8, which provides that minimum qualifying marks for general candidates in each subject will be 45% and for SC/ST 40%, but aggregate of written papers and interview to be 50% for general, and 45% for SC/ST. CWP No.16899 of 2009 -2- It is not in dispute, that 17% posts of Sub Inspector in ITBP are reserved for the employees of the department. The appointment to these posts is made by limited departmental examination. The petitioner appeared in the examination for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector. It is not in dispute that petitioner did not get an aggregate of 50% mark, inclusive of interview and the written test. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is, that according to rules governing the appointment of Sub Inspector against 17% reserved vacancies it was provided that in addition to aggregate of 50% and 45% marks in each of the subjects, it was also stipulated that candidate was required to get 45% marks in the interview also. The condition of fixing minimum of 45% marks in interview was struck out by this Court, by holding it to be arbitrary, as it gave powers to the respondents, of making an eligible candidate unfit by awarding him less than 45% marks in the interview. It was in pursuance of the decision of this Court that the impugned order (Annexure P-5) was passed, and the candidate who had otherwise secured 50% marks inclusive of interview and were declared fit though not obtaining 45% marks in the interview. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the mere fact that the condition of 45% marks in interview was held to be arbitrary, this automatically means that fixing of 50% marks in aggregate would also be bad in law. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in view of the judgment of this Court in quashing the fixing of minimum 45% marks, would mean that interview marks were CWP No.16899 of 2009 -3- not to be taken into consideration at all, and the petitioner should have been declared successful, as he has aggregate of 50% marks in written examination. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. This Court nowhere laid down that no marks for interview could be fixed, rather it was held that fixation of 20% marks for interview could not be said to be excessive. It was fixation of minimum 45% marks in interview to be successful was declared to be ultra vires of the Constitution, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the interview marks were to be ignored, on the face of it is misconceived, as the total marks were 600 and person had to get 300 marks inclusive of the marks in the interview. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner does not have 50% aggregate marks in written test and interview collectively. Clause 8 fixing 50% marks for being declared successful cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as it is open to the employer to fix the minimum qualifying marks for the persons to be declared fit for promotion. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 27, 2010 R.S.