IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 78 of 2010 Sandeep Tiwari (in person) …...Petitioner. Versus Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation 117, Indira Vihar, Dehradun. ….…Respondent. Present:- Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Petitioner in person. Ms. Seema Sirohi, Advocate for the respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J, (Oral) Vacancies in two posts of Law Officers were notified. Petitioner responded. He appeared in the written examination followed by interview. He was not appointed. He, accordingly, obtained information pertaining to the selection by taking recourse to the provisions of Right to Information Act. Petitioner then came to learn that he secured the 4th position in the merit list. He further came to learn that the second person in the merit list, having had joined some other office, was not inclined to accept the appointment, even if offered to him. He further came to learn that the third person in the merit list did not appear in the interview. Petitioner, accordingly, has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondent employer to offer him one of those notified vacancies. We have considered, as we were invited to, the applicable Rules contained in Sub-rules 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Officers Service Regulations, 2009. In terms thereof, on the basis of the marks obtained in the written examination, a candidate gets an opportunity to be interviewed. The marks obtained at the interview, then is required to be added to the marks obtained in the written test. After that, the Rules mandate preparation of a list of candidates in order of merit as disclosed by the aggregate marks obtained by them in the written test and interview. It further provides that the number of the names in the list shall be more than the number of vacancies, but not more than 25 per cent. In such view of the matter, in accordance 2 with the Rules, if a candidate has not appeared in interview, he should be deemed to have obtained no marks in interview, but still then in order to ascertain merit inter-se the candidates his marks obtained in written examination are required to be taken note of. That was done in the instant case, and accordingly, the third person in the merit list came to be included therein. Inasmuch as the number of vacancies was two, in terms of the mandate of the Rules, only one more person at the best could be included in the select list i.e. altogether three persons. Admittedly, the petitioner was fourth. He, accordingly, was not in the select list. That being the situation, petitioner on the basis of his efforts made at the written examination and interview acquired nothing more than, what he had immediately prior to the written examination and interview. We, therefore, are unable to do anything in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 27.10.2010 Rathour