Shaffique, J. The appellant has filed the writ petition challenging the judgment dated 14.3.2014 of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No. 14878/2011.
2. The petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Engineer in the 2nd respondent's establishment. Applications were submitted by the petitioner pursuant to Ext P1 notification dated 30.10.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that after conducting the objective type aptitude test and interview, the respondent converted the total marks for the objective type aptitude test from 600 to 80 thereby narrowing down the margin of difference between each candidate to such an extent giving way to the tilting of balance in favour of a few persons by giving them more marks in the interview. According to the petitioner, he had more marks. If the mark out of 600 was taken into consideration, the petitioner would have been in the first rank as against the party respondents.
3. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the fact that the selection process was completed as early as on 28.10.2008 and the writ petition was filed only in the year 2010, found that the writ petition W.A. No.1670 of 2014 -: 2 :-
was not maintainable on account of delay and laches and, accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the merit of the contentions urged by the petitioner was not considered. It is inter alia contended that after the written test, no changes could be made in respect of the total marks and the marks available for interview.
5. It is evident from Ext. R3(a) rules dated 3.4.2007 that it is permissible to prescribe 80% marks for the written test and 20% marks for interview. If the contention urged by the petitioner is considered, even if 600 is taken as total marks (80%) for the written test, then the 20% marks in the interview will be 150 marks. Counsel argued that marks for the written test has to be computed with reference to total marks obtained in the written test, which is out of 600 and thereafter marks of the interview which is out of 20 is to be computed for the purpose of preparing rank list.
6. If such a method is adopted, it will be grossly against the rules prescribed by the Government. That apart, there is no material to indicate in Ext. P1 notification that total marks for the written test will be taken as 600 and that the marks for the interview will be 20. In the absence of any such materials on record, W.A. No.1670 of 2014 -: 3 :-
we do not think that the petitioner/appellant has any case on merits. The official respondents have adopted a method which is well accepted in conducting written test and interview.
Under these circumstances, we are not interfering with the judgment of the learned Single Judge in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
Ashok Bhushan, Ag. Chief Justice Tds/ Sd/-
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.