K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the interview test and the results declared in the examination held by respondent No. 1 in pursuance of the advertisement issued on 9-5-1981. (b) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to hold fresh interview test on the basis of results declared in the written examination on 17-9-1981 and to declare the result strictly on the basis of merits. (c) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (d) to award cost of the petition to the petitioner.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details The petitioner, who is M. A. in Economics and was fully qualified to appear in the examination to be held under an advertisement published in Hindi daily "AAJ- on 9-5-1981 by the Chairman, Tulsi Gramin Bank, he had submitted his application within time for the post of officer, and had received a written examination call letter for appearing in the written examination to be held on 19-7-1981 at I. I. T. College, Kanpur. He was allotted Roll No. 189. He was found qualified at the written examination for the interview and an interview call letter had also been issued to him (See Annexures '2" and '3' attached to the writ petition). It appears that later on some suspicion arose about some candidates having used unfair means in the written examination. Therefore, it was suggested that they should not be declared successful in the interview and that they should be given zero mark (see Annexure '5'). The petitioner being one of the suspected candidates was not declared successful at the interview, therefore, he was not selected for the post he appeared in the examination. Aggrieved by the declaration of the result the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner before us is that the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that he had not used any unfair means in the written examination. According to him the suspicion is ill-founded and the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 in the present writ petition have acted illegally and arbitrarily in dealing with the claim of the petitioner. It has been very much emphasised that the resolution in Annexure '5' for awarding 'Zero' mark to the petitioner at the interview was wholly perverse and betrayed an arbitrary approach on the part of the authorities.;