- (1.) S. Harkauli, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioners had appeared at the written test and interview for 36 posts of Gramya Vicars Adhikari. After inter view, petitioner's names were placed in the select list, but they were not issued ap pointment letters. By order of the District Magistrate the interview and its result was cancelled with the direction to hold fresh interview. THE only reason given in the counter-affidavit for cancelling the inter view and its result is that the Chairman and each members of the interview should have awarded separate marks under three heads mentioned in Rule 5 (4) of the U. P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'c' posts (Outside the purview of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commis sion) Rules, 1998. It is alleged in the counter-affidavit that the Chairman and each member awarded the marks to each candidate as assessed by the Chairman and members cumulatively for all three heads and not separately in respect of each of the three heads mentioned in the rules. The petitioners have challenged the interpretation placed by the respon dent upon Rule 5 (4) (b ). The said rule is reproduced below: "the interview while carry ten per cent marks. Marks at the interview shall be awarded by the Chairman and all other members separately in the following manner- (i) Subject General up to four percent knowledge marks (ii) Personality Assess- up to three per cent ment marks (iii) Power Expression of up to three per cent marks. Afore. The total marks obtained by a can didate at the interview shall be determined by calculating the average of marks awarded to him by the Chairman and all the Members of the Selection Committee Separately. " The use of the words separately in main sub-rule qualifies the Chairman and the Members and not the heading. It only means that the Board will not after discus sion award cumulative marks to one can didate but each Members of the Board will assess the candidates and award marks as judged by him separately. Thereafter, ac cording to the note referred to above, the average of marks awarded by the Chair man and each of the Members will be taken as the marks obtained by candidate. The three heads mentioned in sub-rule are meant only for guideline and to for the purposes awarding marks separately under each head.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel has in vited my attention to paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit in which it has been mentioned that there were allegations that the Chairman of the Committee had taken some bribe. First of all in this regard an enquiry was held. In the counter-affidavit it has not been stated if the charge of taking bribe by the Chairman was proved. Secondly it has not been stated what action has been taken against him. In view of this I am not incline to believe such allegation without corroboration. In the circumstances, the rule as it stands has been wrongly interpreted. The impugned order canceling result and in terview of the petitioners is quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The appointment letters will be issued to the petitioners according to the result unless there is any other impediment. Petition allowed. .;