Allahabad High Court
KRISHNA KUMAR TIWARIversusState of UP AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
Selection for the cartographer posts is based solely on interview marks, and the petitioner’s failure to meet the interview cut‑off precludes any entitlement to appointment, resulting in dismissal of the writ petition.
Summary
The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission advertised 39 cartographer posts and conducted a two‑stage selection comprising a screening test followed by an interview. The petitioner cleared the screening with a high quality‑point score of 83.97 but scored only 8 marks in the interview, below the cut‑off of 16 marks. He filed a writ petition seeking his appointment, arguing that his eligibility was established by the screening and that the interview result should not defeat his claim, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India. The respondents contended that the interview marks alone determine selection and cited a Government order dated 25‑03‑1994 allowing reserved‑category candidates who meet the general‑category marks to be treated as general candidates. The Court held that the selection criteria were expressly limited to interview performance, the petitioner failed to meet the required cut‑off, and the cited Supreme Court precedent was inapplicable, leading to dismissal of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the screening test marks can be considered for selection when the selection criteria specify interview marks.
- Whether the petitioner’s failure to achieve the interview cut‑off of 16 marks justifies denial of appointment.
- Whether the Supreme Court decision in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India is applicable to the present recruitment process.
- Whether the Government order dated 25‑03‑1994 on category adjustment affects the petitioner’s claim.
Subjects
- recruitment
- reservation
- interview selection
- screening test
- category adjustment
- government order
- writ petition
- selection criteria
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 4916 of 2024
Krishna Kumar Tiwari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Kirit Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Siddharth Singhal
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Kirit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Manish Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who appears for
State-respondents as well as Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for
the Commission.
2. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they
do not propose to file any further affidavits thus with the consent of the
parties, writ petition is being decided at the admission stage.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that an advertisement came to be
published by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection
Commission for being advertisement No. 15(6)/2015 for appointment on
the post of Cartographer. As many as 39 posts of Cartographer came to be
advertised, bifurcation whereof 19 unreserved, 11 SC, 2 ST and 7 OBC.
The writ petitioner claiming himself to be eligible in all respects applied
in pursuance of the said advertisement. The selection was based upon
interview. A screening was done on the basis of the testimonials of the
respective candidates. Subsequently, on 18.11.2022, the consolidated list
of candidates came to be published invited for interview for the post in
question. As per the same, those candidates who have secured percentage
upto or above, the cut off (percentage) published by the Commission
notice dated 14.11.2022 and who were not included in the interview list,
were given an opportunity to submit their representation along with
essential education/ other required documents to the Commission.
Thereafter the interview was scheduled of 357 candidates by the
Commission vide notice dated 18.11.2022 and 28 candidates were invited
for interview on the basis of the representation totaling to 385 and the
same stood published in the Commission's website vide notice dated
02.02.2024. The interview of 385 candidates was conducted in the office
of Commission from 20.02.2024 to 24.02.2024 and the cut off marks of
WRIA No. 4916 of 2024
2
total 39 candidates (whereof 19 unreserved, 11 SC, 2 ST and 7 OBC) was
uploaded on the website of the Commission on 13.03.2024. In the
interview dates, the writ petitioner is stated to have been secured only 8
marks and the last selected candidates obtained 16 marks. Since according
to the writ petitioner, he had obtained at the screening level quality point
marks 83.97 so the writ petitioner preferred the present writ petition with
a direction to the Commission to select the writ petitioner on the post of
Cartographer in pursuance of the said advertisement.
4. This Court entertained the writ petition on 01.04.2024 sought counter
affidavit.
5. Counter affidavit has been filed by Examination Controller of the
Commission dated 01.07.2024 on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to
which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the action of
the respondents in denying appointment to the selection and appointment
of the writ petitioner on the post of Cartographer cannot be sustained even
for a single moment. Elaborating the said submission, it is contended that
once the writ petitioner was permitted to appear in the interview then it
pre-supposes that the writ petitioner was fully eligible and qualified and
according to the writ petitioner, he had secured quality point marks being
83.97, however, the candidates at page-37 of the paperbook at serial no.
13, 14 and 17 being Maha Pratap Singh, Mohammad Arif and Vishal
Kumar Tripathi had obtained marks being 74.13, 82.54 and 83.65 which
was below the marks obtained by the writ petitioner under the para-meter
of quality point marks thus merely because the writ petitioner has
obtained 8 marks in interview and the cut off marks was 16 cannot be a
ground to negate the claim of the writ petitioner. He further submits that
even the unreserved candidate has been adjusted under the general
category quota which is illegal and he seeks to rely upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India; 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 354.
7. Sri Manish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Siddharth
Singhal, learned counsel for the Commission on the other hand submits
that mere participate in the interview on the basis of the screening so
conducted would not be a ground to accord any benefit, particularly,
when the marks obtained in screening are not to be considered and taken
into consideration for selection as the purpose of screening is to restrict
the number of candidates to appear in the interview as what would be
relevant is the marks obtained in the interview as the interview is the only
basis for conducting selections. They submits that there happens to be a
Government order dated 25.03.1994, according to which if a candidate
WRIA No. 4916 of 2024
3
belonging to reserved category competes when the general category and
he obtains the required marks then he is to be adjusted against the general
category.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
records carefully.
9. Apparently, an advertisement came to be published by the Commission
for recruitment on the post of Cartographer in pursuance of being
advertisement No. 15(6)/2015. As many as 39 posts of Cartographer came
to be advertised (bifurcation whereof 19 unreserved, 11 SC, 2 ST and 7
OBC). The writ petitioner on representation was found to have cleared the
screening test, however, in the interview, the writ petitioner obtained 8
marks which is much below the cut off being 16 marks. The parties are in
agreement that the criteria for selection is interview.
10. As a matter of fact, the marks awarded in screening are not taken into
consideration once the selections is based upon the interview only.
Merely because the writ petitioner obtained higher marks over and above
the cut off marks in screening would not be a ground to hold the writ
petitioner to be eligible, particularly, when the writ petitioner obtained
marks lesser than cut off marks in interview.
11. As regard, the judgment in Deepa E.V. (supra) is concerned, the same
would not apply, particularly, herein in the present case, there happens to
be a Government order dated 25.03.1994 providing that in case an
reserved category candidate competes with the general category and
obtained the required marks then he is to be treated to be under general
category.
12. Accordingly, no good ground is made for interference, the writ
petition stands dismissed.
March 19, 2026
Ashu
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…