IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 1762 of 2010 Date of Decision: 3.2.2010. Pankaj Devi --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The Haryana Subordinate Service Selection Board issued Advertisement No.6/2006 dated 20.7.2006 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for various posts including 729 posts of Math Masters. Under Category No. 15, 729 posts of Math Masters were distributed under different categories. 345 vacancies were for general category out of which 114 posts were reserved for General (Female) Category being 33%. The qualifications prescribed for the post are as under:- “ E.Q:- (i) B.A./B.Sc with Mathematics and B.T/B.Ed from a recognized university. OR B.Sc. Education (4 year course) with Mathematics from a recognized university. (ii) Knowledge of Hindi up to matric standard.” The petitioner being eligible applied for the post of Math Master under General (Female) Category. She was allotted Roll No. 10045 for appearance in the written test. Petitioner failed in the written test and thus was not called for interview. The final result of the selected candidates CWP. No. 1762 of 2010 -2- was declared on 5.9.2008 published in “The Tribune” on 6.9.2008. It is alleged in the writ petition that three vacancies of the Math Master remained vacant under General (Female) Category after the final selection. The petitioner made representation claiming her consideration against the available vacancies. A copy of the representation dated 7.9.2008 is placed on record as Annexure P-7. In response to her representation, petitioner was informed that she has not qualified the written test and has secured 36 marks out of 200 marks. Petitioner applied under the RTI Act seeking information how many candidates of General (Female) Category were called for interview on the basis of the written test and how many marks were obtained by the selected candidate etc. In response to the aforesaid inquiry, the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 10.10.2008 that 137 candidates of General (Female) Category were declared successful in the written test and called for interview. Petitioner again sought information regarding the criteria adopted for selection and she was informed vide letter dated 31.3.2009 the criteria adopted by the Commission for making selection. The criteria communicated to the petitioner is as under:- “ Written Test 200 marks. Viva Voce 25 marks Total:- 225 marks.” The petitioner has accordingly filed this petition seeking a direction in the nature of Mandamus for her appointment against one of the three vacant posts. It is petitioner's own case that the selection has been made on the basis of the criteria laid down by the Commission which inter alia includes the written test followed by viva voce. The petitioner could not CWP. No. 1762 of 2010 -3- qualify the written test and thus was not summoned for viva voce. The petitioner has tried to lay emphasis that the written test was for shortlisting, however, from the averments made in the writ petition itself, wherein reference is made to the criteria adopted by the Commission, it appears that the selection was to be made on the basis of the written examination followed by interview. It is settled law that the selection can be made by different modes i.e (i) written test (ii) interview (iii) written test followed by the interview and (iv) the academic marks. In the present case the selection has been made on the basis of the written test followed by the interview. The petitioner having failed in the written test cannot claim appointment against the vacant posts. Otherwise also, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is the next in the merit in the written test. There may be many candidates above the petitioner in the written test. The petitioner has secured only 36 marks out of 200. No relief can be granted on the basis of the aforesaid circumstances. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 3.2.2010. lucky