Delivering its verdict, a bench headed by Justice Hrishikesh Roy found the selection process to be legally valid and said that the requirement of obtaining minimum qualifying marks in the interview is acceptable and certainly not arbitrary, irrational or violative of Article 14. There is no violation.
The bench, also comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, had reserved its verdict on the pleas challenging the selection of only nine candidates in the interview against a total of 99 vacancies in February this year.
The petitioners stated that a total of 69 candidates were called for interview after the written examination, and in the oral examination, 60 candidates, who had performed quite well in the written examination, were given 10 marks out of 50 and as a result, they were declared unsuccessful. Was declared.
Seeking immediate intervention of the apex court, the plea alleged that the selection process completely smacks of arbitrariness and violates the rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The bench, also comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, had reserved its verdict on the pleas challenging the selection of only nine candidates in the interview against a total of 99 vacancies in February this year.
The petitioners stated that a total of 69 candidates were called for interview after the written examination, and in the oral examination, 60 candidates, who had performed quite well in the written examination, were given 10 marks out of 50 and as a result, they were declared unsuccessful. Was declared.
Seeking immediate intervention of the apex court, the plea alleged that the selection process completely smacks of arbitrariness and violates the rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
