M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ striking down the letter of appointment issued by respondent No. 6, Senior Executive Personnel. Chasnala colliery in favour of respondent Nos. 7 to 9 against the three posts of Deputy Surveyor without considering the case of the petitioner who belongs to backward class and further for a declaration that allotment of 50 marks for written test and 50 marks for interview is arbitrary, malafide, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
(2.) IN 1999 the respondent -Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd.. a subsidiary of Steel Authority of India Limited, published an advertisement in the newspaper for the post of Deputy Surveyor for its Chasnala colliery located at Dhanbad. As per advertisement the requisite qualification was diploma in underground Mining Operation with surveyor ship certificate in mining. The petitioner being eligible and qualified, applied for the post of surveyor and submitted his application along with certificates of qualification, experience and O.B.C. issued by the competent authority. The petitioner appeared in the written test and became successful. The petitioner received a call letter for interview on 3rd March. 2000 issued by Senior Executive Personnel. It is contended by the petitioner that he did well in the interview and answered all the technical and non -technical questions satisfactorily. It is further contended that 50 marks was allotted for interview out of 100 marks and out of 50 marks he obtained 39 marks whereas respondent No, 9 obtained 41 marks. It is alleged that allotment of 50 marks for oral interview and 50 marks for written test for the post of surveyor gives enough chance for manipulation and favouring their own candidates. Respondents' case, on the other hand, is that the petitioner did not even secure qualifying marks which was 60 in total and he obtained 50.5 marks in total. The other three candidates who were selected, secured qualifying marks of 60.
(3.) MR . P.K. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly assailed the allocation of 50 marks for written test and 50 marks for interview as wholly unconstitutional and against the settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court. In this connection learned Counsel put heavy reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab & Ors. and Munlndra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil & Ors.. .;