CWP No.15332 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15332 of 2010 Date of decision: 06.05.2011 Vishal Malik .. Petitioner Versus Haryana Gramin Bank and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. Present:- Mr.R.N. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.K. Dutt, Advocate, for the respondent-Bank. **** RANJIT SINGH J. (ORAL) Respondent-Haryana Gramin Bank advertised sixty posts of Class I Officer on 10.11.2009. The selection was to be made on the basis of a written examination and interview. The written examination was held on 27.12.2009. The qualification as well as preferential qualifications were also specified in the advertisement. The total marks for written test were 150 whereas 50 marks were kept for interview. When the result was declared, the petitioner did not find his name in the select list. Claiming that interview marks were excessively fixed and that petitioner was not given weightage on the basis of preferential qualifications, the petitioner has challenged the selection through this writ petition. CWP No.15332 of 2010 ::2:: In response to notice, respondents have filed a detailed reply. The grounds and assertions made in the petition have been controverted. The respondent would justify the selection so made on the ground that the written test was conducted by Institute of Banking Recruitment and it was thereafter that interview was conducted and the selection was made. The counsel for the petitioner has impugned the selection primarily on the ground that excessive marks were kept for interview. In this regard, the counsel has placed reliance on the law laid down in Ashok Kumar Yadav versus State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 454. As per the observations made in this case, interview marks cannot be kept more than 12.5.% of the marks fixed for written examination. The petitioner's grievance in this case is that the interview carrying 33.3% marks is invalid. The counsel would also submit that the preferential qualification possessed by the petitioner has not been taken into consideration and he has been under- assessed in the interview though he secured good marks in the written test. The respondent, on the other hand, would rely upon the case of Jasvinder Singh versus State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2002(8) SLR-SC 374. Here, the action of keeping more than 12.5% marks for interview was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, it is stated that there is no substance in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner the interview marks could be kept more than 12.5% of the marks kept for written examination. CWP No.15332 of 2010 ::3:: Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed on record the entire result of the candidates who had participated in the selection. He has made reference to marks obtained by number of candidates where they had secured reasonably high marks in the written examination but could not perform well in the interview and accordingly could not make to the selection list. It is, therefore, clear that it is not the petitioner alone who has faced non-selection for getting less marks in the interview but there were number of other candidates who were similarly situated. There is no allegation of any mala fides made against the Selection Committee or its member. Having participated in the selection and after being unsuccessful, the petitioner has now raised this challenge. Keeping in view the result of the written test and interview, this petition seems to have missed selection. The criteria was promulgated well in advance that the selection would be made on the basis of written test as well as the interview. Merely because the petitioner had some qualifications in which the preference could be given would not mean that the petitioner deserves better assessment in interview on this count. The petitioner was required to be assessed on the basis of his performance in the interview. In the absence of allegation of as mala fides or any allegation that any particular candidate was favoured or disfavoured, no case for intereferance in the selection is made out. Merely on the ground that excessive marks were kept for written test would not be a good ground to call in question the selection. CWP No.15332 of 2010 ::4:: I, thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned selection. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (RANJIT SINGH) May 6, 2011 JUDGE Sukhpreet