1. Advertisement notification No. 06 of 2005 dated 21st November, 2005 was issued by Subordinate Service Re#31;cruitment Board (for short SSB). Be#31;sides others, posts of Assistant Tour#31;ism Officer in the Tourism Department, were also notified. The eligibil#31;ity criteria was fixed as Graduate from recognized University having adequate knowledge of History, Geography of State with knowledge of one foreign lan#31;guage or have undergone training in any line of tourism/travel from a rec#31;ognized institute. The petitioner, as also the private respondent being eli#31;gible, sought consideration for being selected and appointed on the post of Assistant Tourism Officer under RBA category. Before conducting of the writ#31;ten test the following criteria was no- tified by the SSB:

i) Graduation/BTS 30 points

ii) Post-Graduation (Tourism) 20 points

iii) Certificate Course 04 points

iv) Diploma in Tourism/Hotel Mgt. 06 points

v) Written test

a) History 10 points

b) Geography 10 points vi) Viva-Voce 20

Total 100 points

2. After the selection process was over, a tentative selection list was is#31;sued in which petitioner was shown to have been tentatively selected having secured 60.85 points, whereas in the final selection list the private respon#31;dent was shown to have been selected.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved of selection of the private respondent has challenged the same in this writ petition on the ground that the peti#31;tioner who was tentatively selected was illegally, arbitrarily shown to be not selected in the final selection list as additional 6 points were given to the private respondent on the ground that he, in addition, possessed diploma in Tourism.

4. The Court on 7th October, 2010, directed that till further orders, appoint#31;ment, if any, made in pursuance to the select list dated 6th of September, 2010 against the post of Assistant Tourism Officer, so far as it relates to the pri#31;vate respondent shall remain stayed.

5. On notice issued, respondents have filed reply affidavit.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the matter.

7. Learned counsel for the peti#31;tioner was at pains to explain that the petitioner has been wrongly excluded for being selected on the post of Assis#31;tant Tourism Officer, though, he was initially shown to have been tentatively selected having secured more' marks than the private respondent. Learned counsel submitted that 06 points awarded to private respondent for hav#31;ing additional qualification of diploma in Tourism has been wrongly and ille#31;gally given to him, inasmuch as, the private respondent has been awarded points for being possessing of degree of Post Graduation in Tourism and could not be given further marks for having diploma in Tourism. Learned counsel also submitted that it is quite unrea#31;sonable and irrational to award marks twice to a candidate in respect of a de#31;gree qualification and for diploma quali#31;fication as well. Learned counsel fur#31;ther submitted that the criteria which is reproduced in Para 8 of the writ peti#31;tion, was notified by the SSB before ini#31;tiating the actual selection process inasmuch as the test was held after no#31;tifying the aforementioned criteria.

8. Learned counsel for the SSB submitted that initially no marks were awarded to private respondent for hav#31;ing diploma in Tourism, but when he filed objection to the tentative selection list, the mistake was rectified by SSB and marks were awarded to him for having diploma in Tourism and resultantly, he emerged as highest meritorious candidate in the RBA Cat#31;egory and was accordingly selected for being appointed on the post of Assistant Tourism Officer. Learned counsel also referred to Annexure - F of the writ petition to indicate that besides award#31;ing marks to a candidate having Post Graduation qualification in Tourism, marks were also awarded to the said candidate(s) being possessed of diploma in Tourism.

9. The perusal of Annexure - F of the writ petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document