CW 10394/09 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10394/09 Satish Chand Gupta Versus UOI & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 07/10/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. P.S. Sharma, for petitioner *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing the Minutes of the Selection committee held on 21/3/2007 for the post of Marketing Executive. It appears from the record that two posts of Marketing Executive [unserved] were advertised by the respondents-National Book Trust, India. In reference to advertisement, 473 applications were received and out of these applications, 39 eligible candidates were short-listed by the screening committee of the Trust which were finally called for interview. In all, 29 candidates appeared before the Selection Committee for interview including present petitioner in a meeting held on 21st March, 2007. It is not disputed that post of Marketing Executive is a selection post to be filled on the basis of interview and the petitioner who too was CW 10394/09 [2] eligible had participated and the Selection Committee after interviewing candidates and taking note of qualifications, academic record, experience & performance in the interview and overall suitability for the job selected two incumbents Dinesh Kumar & Shantanu Bhattacharya and one Mr.Harsh Chandra Sati was placed in the reserved panel. In view of recommendations made by the Selection Committee, selected candidates were appointed by the respondents as Marketing Executive. Grievance of the petitioner is that it has not been disclosed by the respondents or by Selection Committee in regard to marks which were secured by the applicants who participated in the selection process in regard to their qualifications, academic record, experience and performance in the interview which has adjudged their overall suitability for the post in question. Counsel further submits that even under Right to Information Act, details were not supplied to him and that certainly appears to be a cause of grievance of the petitioner for approaching this court. CW 10394/09 [3] Petitioner has not challenged the Constitution of the Committee or alleging malafide against the member of the Committee which made its final recommendations. Submission made by Counsel is without substance for the reason that if it is a selection post to be filled on the basis of interview and rules does not disclose about allocating marks for individual heads as referred to supra, the committee was not under an obligation to specify while adjudging overall suitability of the incumbents who were finally selected. As already observed supra, in the absence of malafide being alleged against the members of the Committee, recommendation made certainly is not required to be further scrutinized by this court within the limited scope of judicial review available U/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, this court find no substance in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA10394CW09 7-10.doc