1 os-wp-718-11.doc pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 718 OF 2011 Yakshi Jaisingh Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and ors. ...Respondents Mr. K. K. Malpathak i/by Mr. Parag Kale for petitioner. Mr. M. D. Siodia with Mr. N.M. Agarwal i/by Rustamji & Girwala for respondent no.1. Ms. Geeta Mulekar for respondent no.2-UOI. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. August 16, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Malpathak, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was one of the 65 candidates who appeared for selection to the post of Legal Officer under the respondent – Corporation. The selection procedure was set out in the advertisement published in the newspapers (Employment News - 14th/20th February, 2 os-wp-718-11.doc 2009). The selection was to be made for 12 vacancies with a break-up of General Category – 8, OBC – 3 and SC – 1. 3. 65 candidates were short listed after the written test and out of them, 52 candidates were sent for the moot court and personal interviews and a merit list was prepared. First 8 candidates, who secured overall highest marks, were in the general category along with 3 in OBC and one in SC as per the merit list were sent for medical examination. The first five with OBC category (non – Creamy layer) were as under:- Sr. No. Name of the Candidate CAT Qual. Wt (out of 120 marks) MOOT Court (Out of 40 Marks) Work Exp. (Out of 10 Marks) Personal Interview out of 30 marks Total out of 200 marks % Marks 1 Mr.Anuplu mar K.A. OBC -NC LLM 77 36.40 10 12.50 135.90 67.95 2 Mr.Gaurav Choudhary OBC -NC BA LLB 80 31.20 6 11.87 129.07 64.53 3 Deepa Jagannathan OBC -NC BA LLB 68 34.89 10 10.25 123.05 61.52 4 Yakshi Jai Singh Chauhan OBC -NC Bsc LLB 71 22.40 6 23.25 122.65 61.32 5 Makalu Balachandr- an OBC -NC BA LLB 65 34.80 10 11.50 121.30 60.65 4. It was submitted by Mr. Malpathak, the learned counsel for 3 os-wp-718-11.doc the petitioner that the candidate at Sr.No. 3 - Ms. Deepa Jagannathan has been awarded 10 out of 10 marks for work experience, whereas the petitioner has been awarded 6 out of 10 marks under the same head and that is not justifiable. It was urged before us that if the minimum experience required was of one year and the petitioner fulfilled the same condition, she ought to have been awarded 10 out of 10 marks for work experience. We do not find any merit in this argument. The Corporation has explained in its affidavit that a Resolution was passed much before the selection process started that the work experience marks will be as per the scale, namely, the experience of minimum one year would get 6 marks, experience of two years would get 8 marks and experience of three years and above would get 10 marks and this scale has been followed, which is apparent from the merit list as reproduced hereinabove. Admittedly, the petitioner’s total score was 122.65 out of 200 marks and the candidate at Sr. No. 3 in the merits list who has been appointed from the OBC category scored a total of 123.05 marks i.e. higher than the petitioner. We are thus satisfied that there is no illegality pointed out in the selection process that was followed and merit has not been compromised. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has been awarded 23.25 marks out of 30 marks under the head – Personal 4 os-wp-718-11.doc Interview, whereas the other candidates from the OBC category secured from 10 to 12.50 marks under the same head. The assessment under different heads in terms of marks granted by the selection committee cannot be a subject matter of judicial review in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, unless a gross error on the face of the record in the same is pointed out. Even otherwise, there are two other candidates in the above merit list of OBC candidates, who have scored 10 out of 10 marks work experience. 5. Hence, we are satisfied that the challenge raised in this petition is devoid of merits and the petition must fail at the threshold. 6. The petition is rejected summarily. (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)