- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has applied for the post of Constable Driver in pursuance of the public advertisement, issued by the respondents, which is at Annexure5 to the memo of the petition.
(2.) IT is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already taken training of Home Guard in the year 1994 and he has got good driving ability and has appeared in the written test and cleared the same, but, in the driving test, the petitioner secured 33 marks out of total 50 marks. The passing marks or the minimum marks is 40 and the petitioner has secured less than minimum marks, but, as the petitioner is a Home Guard, his case should have been considered by the respondents in the reserved category quota and he should have been appointed as Constable Driver. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner has not secured minimum marks in the Motor Driving Test. Out of total 50 marks, the minimum marks required to be obtained is 40 marks, whereas, the petitioner has secured only 33 marks and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be appointed on the post of Constable Driver, even though he is a Home Guard. No relaxation can be given for reducing the passing standard. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) The petitioner has preferred an application for appointment on the post of Constable Driver in pursuance of a public advertisement, issued by the respondents, which is at Annexure5 to the memo of the petition. (ii) The petitioner is a Home Guard, as alleged by the petitioner. Be as it may, but, the fact remains that in driving test, the petitioner has secured only 33 marks out of total 50 marks. The minimum marks required to be obtained by the candidate for his selection is 40 marks. The petitioner has secured less than minimum marks. The driving test includes the driving mechanical knowledge, test of the vehicle and traffic signal rules etc. The petitioner could not clear these tests. (iii) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Home Guard and as he is already knowing the driving, some concession should have been given by the respondents. The petitioner should be appointed as a Constable Driver, though he has not secured minimum marks. This contention is not accepted by this Court, looking to the reason that minimum marks has to be obtained by every candidate, even though he is a Home Guard especially in the driving test. The petitioner has secured less than minimum marks and, therefore, no concession can be given to such type of candidate. There are no such rules for grant of concession, even for Home Guard category candidate. What should be the passing standard, it is a policy decision of the State and it cannot be relaxed by the Court.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.;