The allocation of marks for the oral interview in a selection process cannot be termed as excessive and arbitrary, and a candidate who has not only qualified by obtaining the required marks in the written examination but whose other traits and character can be judged and has been judged in an objective manner at an oral interview has to be selected.

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 268 of 2013 seeks a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records of the selection process carried out by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (for short "MPSC") in pursuance of an advertisement dated 16th November 2011. That advertisement was issued to fill up the posts of Ward Officer/Assistant Commissioner in the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation (for short "BMC"). The further prayer is that on a scrutiny and verification of these records, the process stand set aside. It is then claimed that the selection of respondent no.5 is illegal for the simple reason that she does not belong to a category for which there was a reservation of the post in the said advertisement.

3. The third prayer is seeking direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for the post of Ward Officer from the category of De-notified Tribes (A).

4. The facts in a nutshell are that the posts of Ward Officer/Assistant Commissioner are on the establishment of the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent is the State of Maharashtra through its Department of Urban Development, which controls and supervises working of the Municipal Corporations across the State of Maharashtra. The 4th respondent is the MPSC, a Commission whose establishment and functioning is traceable to Articles 315 to 323 of the Constitution of India. It conducts examinations for recruiting and appointing candidates to fill up the civil posts. The 5th respondent belongs to NT-B category. She is selected for the said post and her name has been recommended by the 4th respondent Commission.

5. The petitioner has passed her M.B.B.S. degree examination. She has also obtained a diploma in Public Health and in Hospital & Health Care Management. She is serving the Municipal Corporation for last 17 years. The advertisement dated 16th November 2011 was published inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Commissioner (Ward Officer). In all 13 posts were to be filled in, 5 out of them were reserved. The minimum educational qualification was also prescribed. There is a criteria for experience which should be also fulfilled. Reliance is placed on paragraph no. 2.1 which indicates as to how there would be a reservation of posts (total 5) and paragraph 2.2 of this advertisement provides for interchangeability. That is on account of non availability of a suitable candidate for the said post. The petitioner claims that she belongs to DT(A) category and as per the advertisement, one clear post was reserved for DT(A) category.

6. In terms of this advertisement, the written examination was scheduled and held on 22nd January 2012. In all 42 candidates cleared the said examination and were held eligible to go further and appear at an interview. The petitioner relies upon Annexure "C" which is a copy of the list of candidates who were called for interview. The argument is that the sole criteria for selection is the combined performance of a candidate in the written test as well as the oral interview. The petitioner states that after the results of the written test were declared, her name was appearing at serial no.1 in the merit list of DT(A) category and 7th in the overall merit list. The petitioner states that on 8th May 2012 and 9th May 2012, the interviews of the successful candidates were held and conducted by respondent no.4. The allegation is that though 42 candidates were selected for interview, respondent no.4 subsequently added 4 more candidates. Presently, out of these 4 candidates, 3 are selected in various categories and their names are recommended by respondent no.4 for selection. Reliance is placed on Annexure "D" which is a copy of the list showing names of those subsequently added 4 persons. On 21st June 2012, the 4th respondent published the final list of candidates who were recommended for