IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 13488 of 2009 Date of Decision: 1.9.2009. Ramneet Singh Sidhu & another --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. G.S. Singhpuria, Advocate for the petitioners. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioners applied for admission in B.Sc., Agriculture (Hons.), a six years programme. The respondent-university (Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana) invited applications for admission to the said course and also issued prospectus for the said purpose. The counselling was held on 9.7.2009 and 11.7.2009. The respondens also notified the criteria for selection in the prospectus itself. Clause 7 dealing with the criteria is reproduced hereunder:- “ Procedure for selection for admissions: (b). B.Sc. Agri. (Hons.) 6 year programme. (i) Performance in matriculation examination 65 marks (ii) For performance in interview 35 marks Total : 100 marks.” From the above clause it appears that no entrance test was held for admission to this course and the selection was to be made on the basis of the performance in the matriculation examination and interview. 65 marks were fixed for matriculation examination and 35 marks for the interview. The petitioner was a general category candidate and has not been selected. CWP. No. 13488 of 2009 -2- The petitioners have accordingly challenged his non-selection primarily on the ground that the marks fixed for interview are excessive and the merit of the petitioners has been turned into demerit and the demerit of the candidate, who has been given higher marks in interview has been turned into merit. In sum and substance the challenge is the fixation of 35 marks for the interview. This issue is no more res integra. In case of Anzar Ahmad Vs. State of Bihar and others reported as AIR 1994 SC 141, following observations have been made:- “ 18. In the instant case, we find that the State Govt. in its letter dated September 20, 1990 has clearly stated that selection should be made on the basis of interview. On the basis of this letter the Commission could have made the selection wholly on the basis of marks obtained at the interview. But in accordance with the past practice, the Commission has made the selection on the basis of interview while keeping in view the academic performance and with that end in view the Commission has allocated 50% marks for academic performance and 50% marks for interview. It cannot be held that the said procedure adopted by the Commission suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. By giving equal weight to academic performance the Commission has rather reduced the possibility of arbitrariness.” In view of the dictum of the aforesaid judgement, there is no illegality in fixing 35 marks for interview, where the selection is made on the basis of the qualifying marks and the interview and no written test is conducted. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 1.9.2009 lucky