1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
[a] Your Lordships be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ as deemed fit directing the Respondent No.2 authority to immediately consider the present petitioner as a qualified candidate for the post of Lecturer (English) in the Government Polytechnic and Degree Engineering College as per the Advertisement no.200 and 204 with all benefit of the Government Employee;
[b] Your Lordships be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ as deemed fit directing the Respondent No.2 authority to immediately appoint the present petitioner for the post of the Lecturer (English) in Government Polytechnic and Degree Engineering College as per the Advertisement no.200 and 204 with all benefit of the Government Employee;
[c] xxx"
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that pursuant to the advertisement Nos. 154 to 208 issued by the State Government, the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer (English), Class-II. It is the say of the petitioner that the petitioner was called for the written examination, which was successfully passed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for personal interview vide letter dated 11.11.2011 for interview on 1.2.2011. Thereafter, the result of the personal interview was declared by the respondent-authority on 14.2.2011, wherein the name of the petitioner was not shown.
2.1. Therefore, the petitioner filed Application under Right to Information Act, wherein the petitioner sought some specific information about the GPSC examination qua the P.H. Candidates. It is the say of the petitioner that on 8.4.2011, the authorities replied to the said Application, wherein the authority has not given proper and static answer of the queries of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.2 the petitioner has preferred this petition.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondents is illegal arbitrary and against the law. He further contended that in spite of the fact that the petitioner has got 43 marks the respondent authorities have not appointed the petitioner on the post of Lecturer (English).
4. Learned Advocate for the respondent fairly submitted that after declaration of the final result, subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under R.T.I. Act. The respondents vide letter dated 12th January, 2012 informed the petitioner that by mistake she was given 43 marks, but in fact, she has obtained less than 30 marks and therefore, she was not appointed on the said post.
5. I have heard learned advocates appearing for both the parties. From the record it is clear that the standard for selection of the candidates under P.H. Category is that they should obtain minimum 36 marks as was fixed by the respondent-Commission. Since, the petitioner had not obtained the requisite marks, she was not selected by the respondent-Commission. It is true that in the merit list the marks of the petitioner were shown as 43. However, the respondent in reply to application of the petitioner filed under Right to Information Information Act, vide letter dated 12th January, 2012, informed the petitioner that by mistake she was given 43 marks, in-fact she had obtained less then 30 marks.
6. In that view of the matter, I am of the view of that prayer which are claimed by the petitioner appears to be misconceived. The present petition devoid of any merits. Hence, the same is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] pawan Top