HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for quashing of the entire selection process undertaken by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) on behalf of the respondent No.2 Bank of India, pursuant to the advertisement issued on 15.7.2011. He has also questioned the selection of the respondent No.3 in the OBC category to the post of Law Officer Scale-I and prays that he be appointed with the respondent No.2 Bank in place of the said respondent.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 Bank had issued an advertisement dated 15.7.2011, inviting applications for making appointments to the posts of Marketing Executive (MBA) Scale-I, Marketing Executive (MBA) Scale-II and Law Officers Scale-I, for filling up a total of 295 vacancies. For the said purpose, respondent No.2 Bank had approached the IBPS for undertaking the recruitment process for the aforesaid posts. The dispute in the present case revolves around the post of Law Officers Scale-I, where there existed three vacancies (OBC-2 and General-1). The examination for the said post was structured by the respondent No.2 Bank in two parts. The first part comprised of the written examination, that was to be conducted by the IBPS and the second part comprised of an oral interview, that was to be conducted by the respondent No.2 Bank. The total marks assigned by the respondent No.2 Bank to the written examination and the interview were 200 and 100 respectively.

3. The petitioner submitted his application for the subject post under the OBC category and along with the other candidates, he sat in the written examination that was held in Delhi. Vide letter dated 26.11.2011, the respondent No.2 Bank called the petitioner for an interview for the subject post that was conducted at Mumbai on 2.12.2011. The petitioner claims that he was not intimated about the final outcome of the examination. Later on, the respondent No.2 Bank had displayed the result of the aforesaid test on its website and against three vacancies for the post of Law Officer, the names of only two successful candidates were displayed. Thereafter, the petitioner adopted the RTI route to gather some information about the results from the respondent No.2 Bank.

4. In its reply dated 6.2.2012, the respondent No.2 Bank informed the petitioner that he had obtained the following marks in the written examination:-

(i) Reasoning (RE) 12 Marks

(ii) Quantitative Assessment (QA) 09 Marks

(iii) General Analysis (GA) 16 Marks

(iv) English (EN) 14 Marks

(v) Professional Knowledge (PK) 32 Marks

Total 83 Marks.

5. The petitioner was further informed that he had scored 83 marks in the interview. It was clarified that for qualifying in the written (objective) test, a candidate from the General category ought to have obtained a minimum of 40% marks in each subject/ section and the overall prescribed marks (minimum) for all sections/subjects was 50%. For the OBC, SC & ST category, a relaxation was given and the candidates applying under the said categories were required to have obtained 35% marks in each section and the aggregate marks in all sections was fixed as 45%. In reply to a question about the availability of eligible qualified candidates category-wise for the subject post, the respondent No.2 Bank had stated that three candidates were selected against three vacancies but the result of one candidate from the OBC category was held in abeyance due to non-submission of conclusive proof of eligibility. Initially, the result of the said candidate was not displayed on the website, but later on, the list of candidates displayed on the website included the name of the respondent No.3, whose result was kept in abeyance.

6. Aggrieved by the information furnished by the respondent No.2 Bank under the RTI Act, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. In the said appeal, the respondent No.2 Bank had given a reply dated 26.3.2012 and in para