IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6255 of 2009 SAURAV SUMAN Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the L.I.C. :- Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Pd., Adv. ------------------ 2. 21.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The Corporation published an advertisement on 28 February-6th March 2008 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Assistant. The selection procedure consisted of a written test, followed by an interview. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was declared successful in the written test. He was not called for interview and has appeared. Thereafter, the respondents have revised the result of the written test by which the name of the petitioner has been taken out from the list of successful candidates eligible for appearing at the interview. The submission is that the action of the respondents is arbitrary. Once the petitioner had competed in the written test and was called for interview, principles of natural justice were required to be followed if he was to be deprived of the benefit of selection at the written examination and the interview in which he had already appeared. Learned counsel for the Corporation submits from Annexure-1A issued by the respondents that arrors were found in the preparation of the list of successful candidates in the written examination when marks of subjects which could not have been taken - 2 - into consideration were inadvertently also included. Once a candidate appeared at the written examination and passed, and was called for interview, normally the authorities cannot be permitted to renegate from that situation and set aside the selection and interview done. While mere inclusion in the list of successful candidates called for the interview may not create a legal right in the petitioner, it simultaneously does not permit the respondents to act arbitrarily. If the respondents chose to revise the result of the written examination and the candidates called for interview, and it is question before a Court, the respondents are obliged to answer it. This Court on a perusal of Annexure 1A is satisfied that the respondents have more than adequately explained the reasons and circumstances because of which the revision of the result of the written test and consequently exclusion of candidates to be called for interview had to be redone. Such persons who have now been excluded from the list of candidates successful in the written examination stands fully explained. Once the reasons have been given and this Court is satisfied that the reasons are not extraneous and irrelevant but germane, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the matter. In a similar circumstance challenge by another candidate to Annexure 1A in C.W.J.C. No. 5934 of 2009 this Court declined interference when after some argument the writ application was dismissed as withdrawn. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.) - 3 -