R.M. Sahai, K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) Lecturers in Hindi have filed these petitions against their exclusion from interview for 25 posts advertised by Commission by two separate advertisements inviting applications for 11 and 14 posts respectively. In writ petition filed by Dr. Suman Misra it was alleged that she was not only Ph. D. but her academic record was consistently good, therefore, the Commission acted arbitrarily in screening her out. Therefore, a direction was sought to opposite parties to permit petitioners to participate in interview. When petitioners were presented the learned counsel for Commission was directed to file counter affidavit and produce the record. He also explained the procedure observed by Commission of screening out candidate. The Commission has framed guide-lines limiting number of candidates in proportion to vacancies to be filled. It goes on decreasing as vacancies increase. In accordance with guidelines where vacancy is 11 or 14 the commission issues interview letters to six times of the vacancy. The total candidates therefore, who could be called for interview were 150. For arriving at this figure the Commission had to screen out candidates as applications were much more than 150. The guideline in this regard is very detailed.
(2.) The Commission has made thirteen categories. The first five out of it are of those candidates, who have obtained doctorate. The grouping has, however, been made on their academic performance. For instance Ph. D. with average of 55% in University and college is put in category one whereas Ph, D. with 50% in category two, so on and so forth. Rest are not relevant. 118 candidates fell in category one. It is stated that Commission calls every candidate of category one without exception. Category two consisted of 83 candidates. Since 118 of category one were to be called, thirty two could be called from category two. But from the record it is apparent that 41 were called. Learned counsel attempted to explain that due to two advertisements some candidates who had applied twice or thrice were granted two and three registration, therefore, due to this duplication and triplication the error has crept in. But the chart produced by him could explain this in respect of two candidates of category one. That is the number of 118 could be reduced to 116 and the number of candidates who could be called from category two could go up by two, i.e. thirty four instead of thirty two. There still remains discrepancy of four.
(3.) What then should be done ? From record it transpired that candidates of category two being equally placed the marks obtained by them in last two examinations were totalled to determine their merit. The last candidate who has been called secured 111.2 whereas Dr. Suman Misra secured 111.1. She therefore missed it narrowly. That alone may not have entitled her to be called for interview as the system of screening out does not appear to be arbitrary. Issuing of interview letters however to more than requisite number raises various issues. But we need not examine any as rule of fairness demands that even if by mistake the benefit of interview stands extended to some then it may be extended to all those who fall in that category. Further there admittedly are others between Dr. Misra and the 41st candidate called by Commission.;