K. KANNAN - (1.) CM 2100 of 2012 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the main writ petition is taken up for hearing today itself. CWP 21618 of 2008
(2.) THE petition challenges non selection of the petitioner as a candidate to the post of Apprentice Development Officer (for short 'ADO'). The advertisement notification (Annexure P-1) stipulates that the selection will be as per the procedure notified on the official website of the respondents. The petitioner has filed CM No.303 of 2009 placing on record the selection procedure as given in the official website. The selection procedure states that the selection would be made on the basis of a written test followed by an interview of the candidates who qualify in the written test. As a matter of record, the petitioner was found to be eligible and called for the interview, he having been placed at Serial No.5 in the order of merit. The petitioner has, however, not been selected allegedly on the ground that his performance in the interview was not up to the mark and on an overall tally, he had secured less marks than the last selected candidate in terms of merit. The assessment of marks for the written test and the interview had been placed at 50:50. The petitioner's contention is that 50% marks for the interview was neither referred to in the advertisement notification nor in the eligibility conditions set out in the website, which is made a part of the record as Annexure P-9. Relying on various judgments, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that assigning 50% marks for the interview is arbitrary. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab and others, 1991(1) SCT 647, wherein for selection to the post of Excise and Taxation Inspector, it was held that 25% marks reserved for viva-voce were excessive and arbitrary. The Court held that the marks reserved for viva-voce should not be more than 15%.
(3.) IN Ashok Kumar Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and another, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 454, 12.2% marks for viva-voce for general category and 25% for ex-service officers for recruitment to the post of Haryana Civil Services (Executive) were allocated. The Supreme Court held that the percentage of marks in the case of ex-service officers was unduly high and suffered from the vice of arbitrariness.;