IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 61 of 2010 Anil Singh Yadav ……… Petitioner. Versus Uttarakhand Public Service Commission .……. Respondent. Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Pandey, Advocate for the respondent. Date of decision: 17-04-2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) An advertisement was issued in December, 2007, inviting applications for filling up 80 posts in the Uttarakhand Civil Services/Upper Subordinate Services. The petitioner was an applicant in the process of selection. The Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand invited the candidates in the first instance to appear for the preliminary examination in February, 2008. The result of the preliminary examination was declared on May/June, 2008, wherein 1590 candidates were declared as qualified. A supplementary result was then declared in September, 2008, wherein 344 more candidates were declared as qualified. 02. The Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand issued a notification on 18.10.2008, publishing the answer keys of the questions posed in the preliminary examination. Objections were also invited from the candidates, who had appeared in the preliminary examination. The aforesaid objections were required to be submitted by 01.11.2008. For some reasons, the result of the preliminary examination was found to be defective/incorrect. Accordingly, through a subsequent notification dated March, 2009 about 1600 more candidates were declared as qualified. 03. Candidates, who have qualified the preliminary examination, are entitled to appear in the main examination. The main examination was conducted from 12.06.2009 to 06.07.2009. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that about 3600 candidates appeared for the 2 main examination. The result of the main examination was published on 12.04.2010. A copy of the aforesaid result has been placed on the record of this case as Annexure- 4. A perusal of Annexure-4 reveals, that 217 candidates qualified the main examination. 04. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that candidates numbering about three times the number of posts advertised have qualified the main examination, and as such, candidates only about three times the number of posts advertised shall be invited for interview. It is submitted, that it is in the interest of justice, equity and good conscious, that candidates at least five times the number of posts advertised should have been invited for interview. 05. Besides the submission, as has been noticed in the foregoing paragraph, learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced no other contention. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We, however, find no merit therein. It is not possible for the Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand to invite candidates for interview, beyond the candidates who have qualified the main examination. Incidentally, in the process of selection conducted by the Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, only 217 candidates have been declared successful in the main examination, as such, invitation of candidates for interview, in excess of those who have qualified the main examination, is totally uncalled for and unacceptable in law. Even otherwise, inviting candidates in the ratio of 1:3 for interview is fair, just and proper. There is no legal precedence or statutory provision, under which the petitioner can demand, that the number of candidates to be invited for interview, should be at least five times the number of posts advertised. 06. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 17.04.2010 17.04.2010 Amit