Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

The petitioner has challenged the action of respondents in fixing the minimum qualifying marks for the interview for appointment to the post of Assistant Administrative officer.

2. It is not disputed that advertisement dated 15.12.2015 prescribed minimum qualifying marks for the interview. The petitioner is, however, aggrieved that the said minimum qualifying marks were left to be decided by the respondents after the interview was over. The minimum qualifying marks finally laid down as 30% is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi reported in AIR 2008 SCW 3205 as well as Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and another v. State of Karnataka by its Chief Secretary and others reported in (1992) 1 Supreme Court Cases 28.

3. As per the reply, the cut off marks for interview are decided before the initiation of the recruitment process and is, accordingly, informed to the Interview Committee members before the time of interview. The qualifying marks for interview were fixed by the Corporation on 18.01.2013 itself at the time of 27th Batch of the Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO) Recruitment and the same qualifying cut off marks for interview for eligibility for final selection maintained in the current recruitment of 29th Batch of AAO in the year 2015.

4. Heard.

5. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hemani Malhotra (supra). However, the same does not help the petitioner in the facts of the present case as the decision to fix the minimum qualifying marks for the interview was taken much after the written test was conducted. Para 9 of the said judgment is relevant which reads thus :-

"9. From the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned case it is evident that previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for viva-voice. Therefore, prescribing minimum marks for viva-voice was not permissible at all after written test was conducted. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and viva-voice, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva-voice before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at viva-voice, test was illegal."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment rendered in the case of Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 152. In the said case, the sole criteria for recruitment was on the basis of viva-voice test and the Court held the said recruitment on the basis of viva-voice test alone to be bad.

7. Whereas, in the present case, it was specifically mentioned in the advertisement dated 15.12.2015 itself that a candidate will have to obtain minimum qualifying marks in the interview as will be decided by the L.I.C. The petitioner applied in pursuance to the said advertisement knowing fully well that minimum qualifying marks shall be prescribed for the interview and that he shall have to obtain minimum qualifying marks to be laid down subsequently. The petitioner accordingly applied in pursuance to the said advertisement and appeared in the written examination. He cleared the written examination and participated in the interview. He challenged the said condition laid down in the advertisement only after the declaration of the result of the interview. It is a well settled proposition of law as also laid down in the case of Madras Institute of Development Studies and another v. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others reported in (2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 454 that a person, who does not clear the