ssp 1 WP 73 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.73 OF 2011 Vijay Vithal Sonawane .....Petitioner versus The Registrar General of High Court and Anr. ..... Respondents Mr.Vijay V. Sonawane, petitioner appeared as party-in-person. Mr.S.K.Shinde, for respondent No.1. Mr.D.A.Nalawade, Govt. Pleader with Mr.R.A.Lokhande, AGP, for respondent No.2. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 17th JANUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. The non-selection of the petitioner to appear for the written examination for the post of Family Court Judge, is challenged by him by way of this petition. 2. A public advertisement was issued by this Court inviting applications of 15 existing and 6 probable posts of Family Court Judges. The petitioner appeared for the preliminary screening test consisting of 100 marks multiple choice questions. The case of the petitioner was not further considered as the candidates who secured 40 marks and above in the preliminary screening test, were called for the written examination. ssp 2 WP 73 of 2011 Since the petitioner failed to secure the benchmark of 40, he was not permitted to appear for the written examination. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that since he belongs to reserved category i.e. Schedule Caste, he has been discriminated against. The advertisement stated that the candidate who obtain 50 marks in the written examination for general category and 45 marks in written examination for SC and ST candidates shall be eligible to take up interview for final selection. According to the petitioner, the said reduction in marks ought to be applied to candidates of SC and ST even in the preliminary screening test by lowering the benchmark of 40 marks to 35 marks. It is conceded by the petitioner that in the advertisement, no post was reserved for backward class candidates. 4. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of this Court by the Registrar (Legal & Research). It is pointed out that since 761 candidates were held eligible for the post and since number of eligible candidates were disproportionately high, the Selection Committee comprising of 4 Learned Judges of this Court decided to shortlist the candidates for written examination by holding preliminary screening test (100 marks multiple choice 50 questions in 45 minutes). In pursuance of the right reserved by the High Court under Clause 20 of the advertisement in respect of shortlisting of candidates, it was decided that the candidates ssp 3 WP 73 of 2011 obtaining cut off marks as may be fixed by the Selection Committee would be called to appear for the written examination in the ratio 1:10 of the available vacancies. 5. It appears that several Writ Petitions were filed by various candidates against the rejection of their candidature for the said post. By an order dated 22-10-2010, this Court directed the Registrar General to take all necessary steps to ensure that the selection process would commence and be completed latest by 31-01-2011. It was decided to publish the names of the candidates obtaining cut off marks on the official website of the High Court and to call upon the candidates to appear for the written examination. The Selection Committee decided to fix the benchmark at 40 marks and observed that it would not be appropriate to go below this benchmark considering the merit expected of the candidates holding the responsible post of Judge, Family Court. Accordingly, 141 candidates who had obtained 40 and above marks out of 655 candidates who appeared in the preliminary screening test were called upon to appear for written examination. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-reply that there are no posts reserved for any particular caste or category and there is no question of giving any concession in the marks of the preliminary screening test since such marks are not going to be considered for final selection. It is pointed out that there are 18 candidates ssp 4 WP 73 of 2011 belonging to Schedule Caste in the list of 141 candidates who have been held eligible for the written examination on the basis of marks obtained by them in the preliminary screening test. Para Nos.7, 8, 10 and 12 of the affidavit-in-reply read as under: - “7. I say and submit that the mark list of the screening/preliminary test was placed before the Hon’ble Selection Committee for consideration in the meeting that was held on 22-12-2010. The Hon’ble Selection Committee decided to fix the benchmark at “40” marks with the observations that it would not be appropriate to go below this bench mark considering the merit expected of the candidates for holding the responsible post of the Judge, Family Court. Accordingly, 144 candidates who had obtained 40 and above marks in the screening test, were directed to be called for written examination. Consequently, admit cards were sent and the names of the said 144 candidates were published on the official website of the High Court on 23-12-2010 who were found eligible for the written examination scheduled to be held on 02-01-2011. 8. I say and submit that the written examination for the post of Judge, Family Court was earlier fixed on 02-05-2010. However, the said examination was required to be postponed by the Hon’ble Selection Committee since as per the orders of the Hon’ble Court passed in various Writ Petitions, a number of candidates were directed to be admitted for the written examination and it was not possible to make sufficient arrangement for holding their written examination within a short span of time. It is clear that the candidates including the present petition, were supposed to be prepared for written examination prior to 02-05-2010 itself. It is not that only after the declaration of the results of the screening test, written examination has been scheduled giving a very short time within any ulterior motive as suggested by the petitioner. It may be pointed out that to comply with the order dated 22-10-2010 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No.3775 of 2010 ssp 5 WP 73 of 2011 coupled with other writ petitions, it was essential to expedite the selection process with a view to complete it by 31-01-2011. Accordingly, the candidates were given pre- intimation about the date scheduled for holding the written examination in the letter dated 03-12-2010 itself. 10. I say and submit that no fundamental rights, much less any rights, of the petitioner have been infringed while proceeding with the selection process. The marks obtained by the candidates in the screening test are not be considered for final selection. They have been considered for shortlisting the candidates by way of a uniform and reasonable norm as contained in Clause 20 of the Advertisement. It may be mentioned that the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) while selecting the candidates for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, also takes screening test for shortlisting the candidates in the ratio of 1:5 of the available vacancies. The MPSC also does not prescribe any concession in the cut off marks for the candidates of any category, since the marks obtained therein are not to be considered for final selection. A copy of the Advertisement dated 30th June, 2010 published by MPSC for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, is annexed and marked as Annexure R-1B. The same uniform procedure has been followed by the High Court in shortlisting the candidates on the basis of the cut off marks i.e. 40. The petitioner has no vested right in claiming concession in the cut off marks in the screening test on any count. Consequently, he cannot avail of the remedy of filing the writ petition for claiming such concession from this Hon’ble Court. 12. I say and submit that the contention of the petitioner that “the forces of persons who believe in caste system have always evolved new ways to defeat reservation of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe or to refuse any concession given to them for getting recruited to the high judicial post and these forces have succeeded here also for the best reasons known to them and have not published any list of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe candidates to whom the standard has been reduced by 5 marks and the same is nothing but violation of the order of the Hon’ble ssp 6 WP 73 of 2011 Supreme Court in the case of Indira V. Union of India”, is nothing but a figment of imagination which tend to give colour of caste to the selection process which in fact, is very transparent. I submit that basically no posts are reserved for any particular caste or category. Therefore, there is no question of giving any concession in the marks for screening/preliminary test since the said marks are not going to be considered for final selection. It may be noted that there are 18 candidates belonging to the Schedule Caste in the list of 144 candidates, who have been held eligible for the written test on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the screening test. This fact itself indicates the hollowness in the above referred contention of the petitioner. It further nullifies the contention raised by the petitioner that “the respondents have adopted a method of selection of the family court judges which lacks transparency and shrewdly designed to eliminate the candidates belonging to the Schedule castes and schedule tribes.” 6. The petitioner who is an Advocate and appearing in-person has placed reliance on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney and Ors. V/s. Union of India and Ors. 1 , regarding providing reservation to backward class. 7. Since the petitioner has alleged in the petition that the method of selection of Family Court Judges lacks transparency and is designed to eliminate the candidates belonging to SC and ST, we called upon the respondents to produce before us the answer paper of the petitioner. On perusal of the same, we found that the petitioner has not 1 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 ssp 7 WP 73 of 2011 secured the requisite 40 marks for being eligible for the written examination. He has obtained 29 marks. Having appeared and failed to obtain the benchmark of 40 marks in the preliminary screening test, it would not now be open to the petitioner to make any grievance. The petitioner having failed to secure the benchmark of 40, was therefore, not called for written examination. 8. For the appointment of a very import post of a Family Court Judge, the Administration is required to consider meritorious candidates. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was eligible to be appointed for the said post as per the recruitment rules, but that does not mean that he has a right to get appointment for the said post. Since the petitioner has failed to secure minimum benchmark, he cannot now make any grievance that a liberal approach should have been adopted in connection with the reserved category candidates in the preliminary written test. It cannot be said that the action of the High Court for non-selection of the petitioner for the written examination was arbitrary or discriminatory in any manner in the selection process. We do not find any substance in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )