VINEET SARAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ravindra Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri Rahul Agarwal for the private respondents No. 4 and 5 and have perused the record. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that in response to an advertisement issued by the Respondent No .3 on 29.8.2007 for filling up 5 posts of Clerks (Group C posts), several persons including the petitioner as well as Respondents No .4 and 5 had applied. The initial typing test of the candidates was to be held on 15.9.2007. However, the said test was postponed for 4.10.2007. On 4.10.2007 the candidates appeared for the typing test in which only 9 persons qualified, which included the respondents No. 4 and 5. It is contended that the typing test on 4.10.2007 was cancelled on 8.10.2007 for the reason that requisite number candidates did not qualify in the said test. Then 18.10.2008 was fixed as the for another typing test, which was postponed to 29.10.2007 and then again postponed to 6.11.2007. The Selection Committee, consisting of 5 senior district Dials as its members, passed an order on 5.11.2007 that the 9 candidates who passed the typing test held on 4.10.2007 need not be tested again as they 1 already qualified and the test be held for the remaining candidates. On 1.2007, 17 other candidates qualified the typing test. After including the 9 candidates who had qualified in the typing test held on 4.10.2007, the total number successful candidates became 26. Out of this, 2 candidates of the test held on 0.2007 and another 2 candidates of the test held on 6.11.2007 did not have the essential qualifications and thus only 22 candidates were called for interview. It is noteworthy that for filling up the five posts, the minimum number of candidates to be called for interview was 20 (i.e. in the ratio of 1:4). In-such way, since now 22 candidates were found eligible, they were interviewed on 7.11.2007 the final select list was also declared on the same date, in which the respondent No. 4 was placed at serial No. 3 and the Respondent No. 5 at serial No. 4. Three other candidates were also selected, who were from amongst those o had qualified in the typing test held on 6.11.2007. The petitioner, who had qualified on 6.11.2007, was placed in the waiting list. Now by means of this writ petition the petitioner has only challenged the selection of Respondents No. 4, 5 on the ground that they did not appear in the typing test held on 6.11.2007 could not have been called for interview on the basis of having qualified in the ting test held on 4.10.2007.
(3.) IN the present writ petition, the petitioner is not challenging the entire lection process. He is only challenging the action of the respondents in calling 5 candidates who qualified the typing test held on 4.10.2007. As has been mentioned above, the ratio in which candidates were to be called for interview was 4 and accordingly for 5 posts, minimum 20 persons had to be called for interview. If that be so, and the candidates who had qualified in the typing test Id on 6.11.2007 alone were to be called for interview, then the process itself would be against the prescribed procedure, as minimum number of 20 candidates would not be there as only 17 persons had qualified in the typing test held on 11.2007, out of which two candidates did not possess the minimum qualification, Thus, as per the norms, 15 candidates would not have been the sufficient number be interviewed for 5 posts. In its wisdom, the Selection Committee had included 2 9 candidates who had qualified the typing test held on 4.10.2007 and had pissed an order in such terms on 5.11.2007 i.e. prior to the date on which the next test was to be held. In this way the total number of the candidates who had be interviewed became 22, which fulfils the prescribed ratio of 1:4. It is not the case of the petitioner that there was any kind of irregularity in the selection/typing test held on 4.10.2007. The further test was required only because the requisite number had not qualified in such test conducted on 4.10.2008.;