- (1.) Heard Sri Siddharth Verma, Advocate for petitioners and Sri Satish Chand Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri A.B. Saran, learned counsel for respondents.
(2.) Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: "A. issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Circular dated 1.1.2009 issued by the respondents (Annexure no. 2 to this writ petition). A1. issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification dated 3.7.2009 issued by the respondent Assurance Company (Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition). B. issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reduce forthwith the percentage of marks reserved for interview test i.e. from 20% to 15%. C. issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Administrative Officer (Development) on the basis of his past performance commencing from 21.7.1978 up till this date. D. issue a writ or direction for holding interview after 31.3.2009. E. issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the fitness of things. F. Award cost of the petition to the petitioner."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that circular dated 01.01.2009, in so far as it prescribes 15-20% marks for interview, is arbitrary since such huge numbers allocated to interview leave room for arbitrariness, hence aforesaid marks for interview are excessive, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. He has placed reliance on Apex Court's decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana, 1985 4 SCC 417, wherein allocation of 22.2% marks for viva voce test was held excessive and unreasonable, tending to leave room for arbitrariness.;