The court upholds the stipulated qualifying marks and the authority of the respondent to reduce the number of posts, and deems the change of font in the printing of the question paper irrelevant.

ORDER :

RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J.

1. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the result dated 05.01.2021 and 06.01.2021 qua selection for the posts advertised by the respondents vide Advertisement No.3(207)/Estab. III dated 30.08.2020 (Annexure P-1).

2. Brief facts, as involved in the present petition are that vide the abovesaid advertisement, respondent No.2 had advertised several categories of posts; including the 10 posts of Section Officers/Estate Officers/Executive Offices, 79 posts of Rent Collector/Assistant EOs/Clerks and 17 posts of Senior Assistants. Although there were other categories of posts in the same advertisement, however, these three categories of posts were mentioned at Sr. No.2, 3 and 5 in the list of categories of posts in the said advertisement. Qua these three categories of posts, it was provided in the advertisement that the candidates can apply through a single application.

3. Still further, the advertisement prescribed that the selection shall be made through a written test of 400 marks comprising of four sections, including one section for Urdu language paper. It was further prescribed in the advertisement that the marks obtained in Urdu will be only qualifying marks and would not be counted towards final merit. The advertisement further prescribed that the candidates will be required to secure 40% marks in each of the sections of the examination, with a further stipulation that in case sufficient number of qualified candidates is not available then qualifying marks in Urdu can be reduced to 35%. The advertisement also prescribed that the candidates three times of the number of advertised posts would be called for interview.

4. After conducting the written exam according to the abovesaid advertisement, the respondent No.2 had declared the results mentioned herein above. Petitioners have not found place in the list of qualified candidates. Hence feeling aggrieved against the result as such, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioners.

5. Arguing the case, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that total number of posts advertised in the abovesaid three categories was 106, therefore, respondent No.2 was required to call 318 candidates for interview to comply with the conditions prescribed under the advertisement. However, respondent No.2 called only 242 candidates for the purpose of the interview. Hence, respondent No.2 has not complied with the conditions of the advertisement. More number of candidates is required to be called for interview. It is further submitted that calling lesser number of candidates for interview shows that a sufficient number of qualified candidates was not available. Therefore, respondent No.2 should have relaxed the conditions of qualifying marks in Urdu in terms of the stipulation contained in the advertisement. The petitioners have been deprived of participation in interview only on account of their lesser marks in the subject of Urdu. Otherwise, all the petitioners have more than 40% marks in all other sections. The petitioners have secured even more marks than the persons who have been called for interview by respondent No.2. Therefore, the respondent No.2 deserves a direction to exercise its discretion, as provided under the advertisement so as to reduce qualifying marks in the subject of Urdu; so that petitioners could be granted an opportunity to compete for the selection in question. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 itself has relaxed the condition of qualifying marks in the subject of Urdu qua other posts advertised through the same advertisement. However, respondent No.2 has not relaxed the same qua the abovementioned three categories of posts; for which the petitioners have applied. Hence the action of respondent No.2 suffers from discrimination as well. It is further submitted that the candidates also got confused in examination because respondent No.2 had changed the font of printing in the subject of Urdu than the one mentioned in the adver