When two or more candidates secure equal marks in the aggregate in a competitive examination, the Commission shall arrange them in order of merit on the basis of their general suitability for the service, as determined through the interview process.

The petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 alongwith various other candidates appeared in U. P. Nyayik Sewa (Munsiff) Examination, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Examination) conducted by the U. P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), The result of the examination was declared on 25-11-1994 in which respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were declared successful but the petitioners name was not there in the list of the successful candidates. Being aggrieved by it petitioner has filed this writ petition for writ of certiorari for getting the selection of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 quashed. Further consequential relief in connection therewith has also been sought.

2. Respondents have filed counter-affidavit and the petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have secured equal marks in the aggregate, as is clear from the following chart given by the Commission in its counter-affidavit:

Sl. No. Roll No. Name Marks in. Inter view Total written Exams

49 4 Surendra Nath 481

Tripathi (Respondent No. 3)

50 40 Himanshu Bhatnagar 473

(Respondent No. 4)

80 Avinash Narain2 2 Pandey (Petitioner)

As all the three candidates mentioned above have secured equal marks in the aggregate, the Commission has selected the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as they secured more marks in written test than the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is that when two or more candidates have secured equal marks in the aggregate, the Commission has to place their names in the list in order of merit on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the interview and, therefore, the petitioner, who secured more marks in the Interview is entitled to be given higher place in the merit list than the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who have secured less marks in the interview, although all of them have secured equal marks in the aggregate.

4. Rule 15 of U. P. Nyayik Sewa Niyamawali (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which prescribes the procedure for recruitment for the post of Munsiff, is reproduced below :

"15. Competitive examination.-The examination may be conducted at such time and on such dates as may be notified by the Com mission and shall consist of-

(a) written examination such legal and allied subjects, includ ing procedure, as may be included in the syllabus prescribed under Rule 18 ;

(b) an examination to test the knowledge of the candidates in Hindi and Urdu ; and

(c) an interview to assess the all round student career of the candidates and their personality, address and general suit ability. "

Under Rule 19 the Commission has to prepare a list of candidates selected by it according to the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate. This Rule is reproduced below :

"19. List of candidates approved by the Commission.-The Commis sion shall prepare a list of candidates who have taken examina tion for recruitment to the service in order of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the Commission, shall arrange them in order of merit on the basis of their general suitability for the service.

(emphasis supplied)

Provided that in making their recommendations the Commission shall satisfy themselves that the candidate has obtained such an aggregate of marks in the written test that he is qualified by his ability for appointment to the service. "

Rule 19 has also laid down criteria for selection if two or more candidates obtained equal marks in the aggregate. The criteria is the general suitabi lity of the candidate for the service. By Rule 15 (c) interview has been prescribed for judging the general suitability of the candidate. Appendix e to the Rule has prescribed the syllabus for competitive examination for the selection for written examination plus viva- voce. Clause (6)