- (1.) The Oriental Bank of Commerce has filed the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging the direction issued by the learned Single Judge on 18.05.2011 to issue appointment letter to writ petitioner-respondents for the post of Clerk under the reserved category of visually impaired candidate. The learned Single Judge has found that out of 152 posts reserved for the Punjab Circle as per advertisement dated 14.11.2011 (P-1), two posts of Clerk were reserved for visually impaired candidate. They fulfilled the eligibility criteria and participated in the written test held on 18.01.2009. They were interviewed by the Selection Committee on 11.04.2009. The appellant-Bank declined to issue appointment letter to them by citing the reason that they had obtained 78 marks each and therefore, they were not entitled to appointment. It was pointed out that the last person in merit of Scheduled Caste had secured 112 marks.
(2.) According to learned Single Judge that as per clause 3, a candidate has to pass in each of the objective and descriptive test separately and mere eligibility/ passing of the written test would not confer any right on a candidate for being called for interview and the final selection was to be made on the basis of ranking accorded after adding the marks obtained in the written tests and the interview. The writ petitioner-respondents were called for interview and the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that they could be called for interview only if they had crossed the minimum bench mark by securing the adequate marks in the written test. Therefore, the appellant-Bank could not put forward the excuse that the writ petitioner-respondents had obtained only 78 marks and could not be appointed. The learned Single Judge further found that no minimum marks for the written test and interview have been fixed and therefore, in the absence of any such bench mark, the writ petitionerrespondents were entitled to be appointed being two visually impaired candidates for two posts as only two of them had applied in that category.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length and are of the view that once there are no minimum marks fixed for qualifying the written test and interview then the appellant-Bank could not argue that the writ petitioner-respondents did not secure adequate marks to qualify particularly when two posts belonging to the visually impaired category were sought to be filled and the writ petitioner-respondents were only two candidates. The appeal is wholly without merit.;