IMPORTANT POINT
In competitive examination also, minimum criteria is prescribed because otherwise it may give way to a very substandard quality of candidates to be selected and, if left to the board to select a benchmark without the minimum criteria, it may sometimes act in discriminatory way to select candidates without very low percentages. Therefore, having set the benchmark for higher percentage of marks for all the categories, no indulgence is shown, for the future purpose, it is being directed that the respondents shall follow the decision discussed herein above and make it more clear and transparent for the candidates.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the unsuccessful writ-petitioner, assailing the correctness of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 6th February 2017 passed in Special Civil Application No. 13823 of 2015 (Heenaben Pravinsinh Chauhan Vs. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd & others), whereby the learned Single Judge, after considering the material on record and legal propositions, dismissed the writ petition.

2. The sole writ petitioner-appellant was a candidate for selection to the post of Junior Engineer (Vidhya Sahayak) Electrical in the respondent No.1 Company, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent No.1 Company. It is the case of the appellant that there was 30% reservation for women (Special - Horizontal Reservation). The competitive examination was held and thereafter the results were declared. A list of 56 candidates short listed as per merit was issued. Depending upon the number of posts available including the vacancies that had arisen the appointment letters were issued on different dates.

3. The name of the petitioner-appellant was not included in the list nor the appointment letter was issued to her. As such, she approached the High Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 13823 of 2015, praying for appropriate direction to the respondents to consider her case for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Vidhya Sahayak) Electrical.

4. The writ petition was filed on the ground that the special reservation meant for women was not correctly applied and secondly that after the competitive examination the respondent company fixed the cut-off marks, which could not be done as it was not provided in the advertisement.

5. Affidavit in reply was filed by the respondent No.1 Company in which the contents of the writ petition were denied. Select List of 56 candidates was prepared and from that List, total 33 appointments were made from time to time. In paragraph-9 of the affidavit in reply, it was stated that cut-off marks fixed for Unreserved and Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC) categories was 65, for Scheduled Caste category, it was 62 and for Scheduled Tribe category, it was 58 marks. In paragraph-10 of the affidavit in reply, it was mentioned that the writ-petitioner had secured 56 marks and therefore, she could not fall in the merit list. There were candidates having higher merit. It is further stated in paragraph-11 of the affidavit in reply that in all 2 women candidates had been appointed; one belonging to the Unreserved category and one belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. In the same paragraph, it is further stated that in all 6 candidates from the Scheduled Caste category, 4 candidates from the Scheduled Tribe category, 11 candidates from the Socially and Educationally Backward Class and 12 candidates from the Unreserved category (total 33) were given appointment.

6. Affidavit in rejoinder was filed by the writ petitioner in which the plea taken was basically that no cut-off marks could have been fixed, the fixing of the cut-off marks after the start of the examination process amounted to meddling with the rules of the game after the game had started. Further affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.1 Company was filed to place on record that after 33 candidates were appointed as per the statement given in the affidavit in reply, 4 more candidates were appointed, thus, making appointments of total 37 candidates.

7. The learned Single Judge, after considering the entire arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and also perusing the pleadings, came to the conclusion that there was no illegality in the fixing of the cut-off marks at the stage of preparation of the merit list. The findings are recorded in paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 24, which are reproduced below:

21. Admittedly, in the instant case, there was no prescription of any minimum or cut off marks in the adverti