CT. Avimanyu Mohanty v. Union of India & Ors.

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. A limited departmental examination commenced on 15.6.2006. The purpose was to fill up the posts of Sub- Inspectors through the limited departmental competitive examination in which the force personnel of CRPF, in junior ranks, could compete.

2. The procedure was prescribed by a standing Order dated 6.12.2000 as per which 17% posts of Sub-Inspectors were to be filled up by means of a limited departmental competitive examination. Preliminary screening required to only shortlist such persons who had the requisite educational qualifications, had a clean service record and were in medical category Shape-I. Those who were so shortlisted were then to 2011:DHC:3690-DB be subjected to a physical efficiency test and only those who cleared Stage-I and Stage-II were to compete.

3. Since the selection was through a competitive examination, the office order prescribes that the shortlisted candidates would take a written test and those who qualify at the written test would be subjected to a personality test followed by an interview.

4. Petitioner successfully cleared the written test but failed at the personality test inasmuch as he did not obtain the minimum marks stipulated to be attained at the personality test and was thus not even called for an interview.

5. The petitioner failed at the personality test on 25.6.2006.

6. Others proceeded to be interviewed.

7. Instant writ petition was filed on 23.4.2010, much after the selection process was over.

8. Ex-facie, the writ petition is barred by limitation.

9. Learned counsel urged that some candidates who were not selected on account of having secured marks below the minimum marks at the interview had filed a writ petition in this court which was disposed of on 2.5.2008 in which the court declined to grant relief as prayed for on the principal that having participated in the selection process those who did not make the grade could not question the selection, but advised the department to re-consider whether the department would still like to insist on minimum qualifying marks at the interview or the selected list should be prepared on the basis of total marks obtained at the written test and the interview.

10. Therefrom learned counsel seeks to urge that the petitioner has not approached this court at a belated stage.

11. We may highlight that the decision of this court which is relied upon by the petitioner does not concern itself with the personality test. The decision related to those persons who approached the court having a grievance that since interviews have an element of subjectivity, stipulation of minimum cut off marks at an interview was illegal.

12. As noted above, relief was not granted to such petitioners. The court only observed that the department may re-look on the issue of minimum cut off marks at the interview.