The court emphasized the importance of transparency in the selection process and upheld the employer's power to prescribe minimum qualifying marks for interviews as a condition for selection and appointment.

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. The question that arises for determination in the present proceeding can be identified as follows:

What would be the legally acceptable stage for stipulating the minimum qualifying marks for being eligible to be selected for appointment?

2. The aforesaid question arises in the following facts:

An advertisement was published on 7.2.2004 by the Conservator of Forests, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council inviting applications, inter alia, for filling up seven vacant posts of Forester Grade-I under the Council. The selection process was to consist of a written test in three papers comprising of a total of 150 marks. Candidates found eligible in the written test were required to take part in a physical endurance test followed by an interview. The interview segment of the selection consisted of another 50 marks. The petitioner who took part in the selection, though had qualified for the interview, was not included in the list of the finally selected candidates for appointment. On the basis of the result of the selection and the approval granted by the Autonomous Council, the respondent Nos. 12 to 20 in the writ petition were appointed in the post of Forester Grade-1 by an order dated 28.6.2005. The respondent Nos. 21 and 22 were also appointed in the said post by an order dated 3.7.2006. The aforesaid appointments of the respondent Nos. 21 and 22 were, however, on purely temporary basis.

3. The petitioner having failed to qualify in the selection held, submitted an application for being appointed against some available vacant posts of Forester Grade-I. The case of the petitioner was duly processed and approval having been granted by the competent authority of the Autonomous Council, the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis in the post of Forester Grade-I by an order dated 20.12.2005. The petitioner, accordingly, joined on 21.12.2005. However, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on 21.6.2007 and, consequently, the petitioner was discharged from service on 3.7.2007. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the petitioner instituted a writ proceeding before this Court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 4768/2007. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 3.10.2007 primarily on the ground that the petitioner, not being a selected candidate, could not have been validly appointed in a public office.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application dated 2.11.2007 under the provision is of the Right to information Act, 2005 seeking particulars/detailed information with regard to the selection held. In response, the authority under the aforesaid Act forwarded to the petitioner a notice dated 22.11.2004 consisting the roll numbers of the candidates selected for the interview as well as the marks secured by all such candidates in the different segment of the, selection. From the aforesaid materials furnished to the petitioner it transpired that the petitioner had secured a total of 142 out of 200 marks in the selection held. On the basis of the total marks secured, the petitioner was to be placed at the second position in order of merit. However, the break up of marks furnished to the petitioner indicated that while the petitioner secured 124 out of 150 marks in the written test, he had secured only 18 marks in the interview. Contending that the petitioner; on the basis of the marks secured by him, is eligible to be appointed and that his case has been wrongly bye-passed, the appointments of the respondent Nos. 12 to 22 have been assailed in this writ petition wherein a direction has been prayed for appointment of the petitioner in the post in question. The petitioner has also contended that the advertisement dated 7.2.2004 being in respect of seven posts only, the appointments of the respondent Nos. 12 to 22 in eleven numbers of posts is beyond the terms of the advertisement. Hence, appropriate interference of the court has also been prayed for.

5. The respondent Nos. 9, 10 and 11 wh