JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, J.
1. Heard Sri Triveni Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S.S. Sharma learned standing counsel along with Sri Deepak Sharma, learned standing counsel for the State.
2. In the writ petition, a mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to prepare the list of selected candidate for the purposes of interview on the conditions prescribed in the advertisement and the rules and to take fresh interview after declaration of fresh list. Further, prayer has been made seeking direction of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the result of the examination and for issuance of appointment letter and not to issue appointment letter of the candidates selected on the basis of interview held on 23.3.1999 and 24.3.1999 wherein the marks obtained by the candidates in the High School and Intermediate has been considered. It appears that the State Government issued a notification under the Uttar Pradesh Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'C' posts (Outside the Purview of U. P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 on 9th August, 1998, enclosed as (Annexure-1) according to which the direct selection to the post of Group 'C' was to be conducted according to the rules and the norms prescribed therein. According to the reservation policy in para 3 (kha) 30% of the marks in the minimum required qualification, i.e.. High School/ Intermediate and after adding such marks in the written examination would be taken as minimum required qualification. Rule 5 of the above 'Rules 1998' prescribed that while making final selection the marks of the interview had been added. It appears on 20.7.1998 an advertisement was sent for appointment against the posts of Group 'C' for the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari in the district of Chandauli.
The prescribed qualification was intermediate science or agricultural science. The petitioner applied for the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari, appeared in the written examination, however, was not declared successful in the written examination when the candidates who had secured minimum required marks were called for the interview on 22, 23 and 24 March, 1999, accordingly result was pronounced on 6.3.1999 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). Petitioner is aggrieved of the result pronounced by stating that many persons who have secured less marks in the written examination were given benefit of 30% marks obtained in their intermediate examination and were called for the interview. Undisputedly, the selection process in question has already been concluded as the candidates were called for interview and after the pronouncement of result placement has been given. According to the counter-affidavit as per provisions of 'Rules 1998' published in the Gazette Notification dated 9.6.1998, for securing minimum qualifying marks the petitioner was called for interview however he was not found suitable according to the parameter prescribed for the 'Rules 1998' and result are not communicated individually to every candidate as the same was pasted on the notice board of the office of Zila Vikas Adhikari, Chandauli and the petitioner himself has obtained his result. According to para 13 of the counter-affidavit as per para 3 (kha) of 'Rules 1998' 30% of the marks obtained by any candidate in the intermediate examination is added to his marks obtained in written examination so as to ascertain the minimum qualifying marks and the marks obtained in the graduation has no consideration.
3. The endeavourance has been made on the petitioner to controvert the averments of the counter-affidavit and reiterated the averments of the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the footnote of the advertisement No. 1371 dated 7.8.1998 as prescribed that other conditions of the examination were already published, placed in the newspaper and has been placed on the notice board in the office of Zila Vikas Adhikari, Chandauli. According to the petitioner the respondents are not allowed to go beyond the conditions given in the said advertisement. Such contention of the petitioner is misconceived because advertisement does not provide a conclusive parameter when the selection has been made according to the rules prescribed for and the petitioner has already appeared in the examination bona fidely and when he failed he challenged the parameter of the selection. As held by the Supreme Court in Swarnlata v. Union of India, 1979 (2) SCR 953, a person who appeared in selection but was not selected cannot turn back to challenge the selection the candidates appeared in the examination had no occasion to challenge the said selection. Here the petitioner might have scored much in the written examination but according to the condition prescribed in the 'Rules 1998' he has not obtained the minimum qualifying marks after adding the 30% of the marks obtained by him in the intermediate examination to his marks in the written examination. It is not the Court to consider the relevance of qualification prescribed for various posts. The State Government has power to prescribe the qualifications and conditions of recruitment in view of Banarasidas v. State of U. P., AIR 1936 SC 520, and the candidates not possessing the requisite qualification not entitled to be appointed in view of V.J. Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1055. Moreso, the qualification for recruitment prescribed in 'Rules' cannot be challenged as mala fide in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in V. K. Sood v. Secretary Civil Aviation, AIR 1993 SC 2285. Therefore, the Court is not inclined to make a judicial review for prescribing the minimum qualifications and requirement fixed by the State Government in the selection process as such I do not find any illegality on the part of the respondent. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.