- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. The present writ petition has been filed by two petitioners Km. Neeta Tewari and Km. Bharti Pandey challenged on order of the U. P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Gomti Nagar Lucknow, (respondent No. 2) refus ing to call these two petitioners for an inter view towards selection of candidates for ap pointment as lecturers in Sanskrit. These two ladies have Qualifications of M. A. in Sanskrit with B. ED and Ph. D. with ex perience of four years of teaching. They had obtained 71. 1% and 69% marks respective ly in M. A. examination.
(2.) AN advertisement was published by the U. P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission (in short Commission) for ap pointment of lecturers in different subjects including Sanskrit. A copy of this advertise ment is in ANnexure No. 2a to the writ petition. The essential Qualification as indi cated in the advertisement was post graduate degree in the subject from any recognised University and the preferential qualification was L. T. Diploma from any Government or recognised institute or a Bachelor of Education degree from any recognised University. Page 2 of the adver tisement gave certain important directions under direction 7, it was stated that the essential qualification indicated in the ad vertisement was the minimum and a candid ate could not claim an interview simply for having this minimum qualification. If the commission was not in position to call each and every applicant for interview, then the Commission may keep in considerating the academic records, the percentage of marks as a basis for interview. The general rule was to call four candidates against one available vacancy. Admittedly in the general category there were 13 vacancies for the post of Lec turer in Sanskrit and it is not disputed that S3 candidates were called for interview, When the writ petition was presented Hon'ble S. Rafal Alam, J. recorded an interim order on 9-9-96 that the Commission would permit the petitioners to appear in the interview for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit, but the result would not be published and the result would be subject to the decision of the writ petition. The petitioners asserted that they had outstanding academic career and all the qualifications. indicated in the advertise ment and had to their credit Ph. D. degrees and teaching experience as well. It was stated in the writ petition that the petitioner had responded to the advertisement spoken of above. They were given control numbers indicating that the fell with in the zone of consideration for being called for interview. The Commission, however, did not call them for interview. But they were informed through other sources that other candidates had already been called for an interview. On query from the office of the Commission the petitioners could know that the Commis sion had fixed a cut off percentage of marks in the M. A. examination for short listing the number of the candidates to be called for interview. The petitioners expressed their grievance that the mere achievements in the M. A. examination without looking to the consistent good result in the earlier ex aminations was not a proper approach of the Commission to short list candidates for interview. The Commission had acted ar bitrarily in the matter. Accordingly the petitioners made a prayer for a direction upon the Commission to call both the petitioners in an interview for the posts of Lecturer in Sanskrit. They also prayed that certain plus points be added giving them weightage on account of teaching ex perience and Ph. D. degrees.
(3.) THE petitioners submitted a sup plementary affidavit to bring on record the guide lines for the working of the Commis sion. THEse guide lines are contained in Annexure No. 1 to the supplementary affidavit. THE petitioners also indicated, through this supplementary affidavit, the marks ob tained by the other candidates called for interview who were selected by the Commis sion. This Annexure No. 2 gives the details of the percentage of the marks obtained by these candidates in examinations from the High School stage to the Post-Graduate stage, which also indicated if they did or did not posses L. T. or B. Ed, degree and Ph. D Degree and teaching experience. A counter affidavit was filed on be half of the respondent through a Section Officer of the Commission. It was indicated in the counter affidavit that interview call letters were sent only to those candidates who were eligible and had come with to the criteria laid down by the Commission in terms of the Service Rules and Government orders. The two petitioners had not reached the criteria level laid down by the Commis sion which was 72. 88 percent marks in the Post-Graduate examination and as such they were not called for interview. It was stated that the Commission was an inde pendent body and it had every right to prepare an uniform formula for selection of better candidate for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit. It was further indicated that in terms of the interim order of the High Court the petitioners were permitted to appear in an interview for the posts in question.;