AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gokal Chand Mittal, C.J.
(1) According to the regulations for educational/ professional qualifications 20 marks have been provided; for performance/CR 30 marks have been provided; for written test 30 marks and for oral interview 20 marks, are provided Challenge is made to oral interview marks it on the ground that this is excessive and it should not have been more than 12.5% or 15%. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Ajay Hasia and Others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others, and Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, .
(2) Where selection is made for promotion within the service the provision for 20% oral test is not excessive and we find support from the decision in D. V. Bakshi vs Union of India, It 1993 (4) S.C.ISO. Keeping in view the ratio of the aforesaid decision we find that 20% marks for oral test is not excessive and the regulation which fell for consideration before us is not illegal or arbitrary.
(3) Even the record was produced by the respondent before us. On a reading of the relevant merit of the selected candidates vis-a-vis the petitioner, we Find that they lost position in the educational/professional qualification and the written test. Even on merits we find no ground to interfere vis-a-vis interse merits of the candidates.
(4) DISMISSED.