The weightage of interview in the selection process and the legality of marks allocation for viva voce were central legal points established in the judgment.

RanjitMore, J.

1. By this petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to quash and set aside the appointment order dated 13th December, 2006. The petitioner has also claimed a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents No.1 and 2 to appoint him as a Junior Engineer (Mechanical) with effect from December, 2006 with all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner's case, in short, is as follows:

In the year 2003, the respondents No.1 and 2 in order to fill up the existing vacancies for the post of Junior Engineer (Mech.) and other Junior Engineers, formulated a scheme to select suitable candidates, train them and then to employ them subsequently in the existing vacancies. The petitioner, accordingly, on recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, underwent one year apprenticeship training in the Public Works Department, Altinho, Panaji,Goa.

An advertisement came to be published by respondents No.1 and 2 in the daily "The Navhind Times" on 23.11.2005 for filling up five posts of Junior Engineer in the Department of Respondent No.1. The petitioner claiming himself to be eligible, applied for the said post of Junior Engineer (Mech.). Pursuant to a call letter, the petitioner also appeared for the interview which was held on 17th April, 2006. Since the petitioner was not informed of the result of the said interview, the petitioner visited the Office of respondent No.1 on 26/10/2006 to enquire about the result of the interview. On inquiry, he learnt that respondent No.1 has prepared a list of selected candidates and his name did not figure in the selected list of candidates.

The petitioner, thereafter, in the reply given pursuant to his application dated 27th October, 2006 made under Right to Information Act, 2005, found that initially applications were invited for selection of five posts, however, 9 posts of Junior Engineer (Mech.) have been filled in. The petitioner found that respondents No.8 to 10 did not possess either Diploma or Degree in Mechanical Engineering and therefore, they were not eligible for selection. The petitioner found that respondents No.1 and 2 have allocated 55 marks out of 100 for the basic qualification of Diploma/Degree. He further found that if a candidate is first class or distinction, additional 5 marks were allocated, for having Diploma in Computer additional 5 marks were allocated, for representation in sports at the State/National level 5 marks were allocated, for experience only 5 marks were allocated and for oral interview 15 marks were allocated. It is the case of the petitioner that effectively, while making selection, only 45 marks out of 100 allocated for selections, since 55 marks are allocated to the basic qualifications which are required under the Recruitment Rules. The petitioner contends that out of these 45 marks, which the Selection Committee had discretion to allot, 15 marks are reserved for oral interviews.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:

(1) In the case of Mohd. Sartaj and another vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 315; and

(2) In the case of Director General., Indian Council for Agricultural Research and others vs. D. Sundara Raju reported in (2011) 6 SCC 605.

3. Respondents No.1 and 2 contested the petition by filing reply. It is the case of the said respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to claim preference in employment merely because he had completed apprenticeship training with respondents No.1 and 2. It was further pointed out that initially there were 5 vacancies, however, since these vacancies increased, 9 posts were filled up which is perfectly legal. Respondents No.1 and 2 also pointed out that the qualification of respondents No.8 and 10 is equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. The respondents further pointed out that 5 marks were allotted to respondents No.3 to11 as they participated in spor