ORDER

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)

The present Original Application (O.A.) has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-

"a. To bring all documents on record based on which the applicant was not made to the final merit in spite of having secured 152 marks which is much above from the cut off marks of her OBC category (Cut Off 100).

b. To direct the respondents to appoint the applicant on the post of TGT (PE) as per the advertisement.

c. To grant any other relief as deem fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice. "

Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that pursuant to Advertisement No. 15/2022 issued by respondent - KVS for recruitment to various posts, including the post of TGT (Physical & Health Education) (in short, P&HE), the applicant applied under OBC category and appeared in the written examination conducted in February, 2023.

Vide letter dated 21.04.2023, the respondents published the cut off marks for shortlisted candidates for interview in different categories. The applicant secured 153 marks in the written examination against the cut off marks of 100 under her category, i.e.OBC.

The applicant was shortlisted and appeared in interview held on 27.05.2023. However, to her utter shock, the applicant’s name did not find place in the provisional list of selected candidates dated 28.11.2023, despite securing more than 85% marks in the written examination.

The applicant filed an application dated 19.12.2023 under RTI Act, 2005 seeking information regarding the marks secured in the interview. In response thereto, she was informed that the marks for all the posts will be made available after the recruitment process is over.

The applicant is aggrieved by the action of the respondents where they have failed to disclose the criteria adopted, i.e. weightage given to written examination and interview respectively, to prepare the final merit list. It is contended by the applicant that the respondents have proceeded arbitrarily to exclude her from the list of provisionally selected candidates, without application of mind and in contravention of principles of natural justice. Thus, she has been denied the right to livelihood protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this O.A.

Learned counsel for the applicant urged that arbitrary marks were awarded to the applicant in the interview process, even the lowest marks, and thus, the respondents have prejudiced her case.

He has also relied upon the following case laws:-

(i) In Union of India & Ors. vs Hindustan Development Corporation & Ors., (1993) 3 SCC 499, wherein it has been observed as under:“…If a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to denial of right guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory unfair or biased, gross abuse of power or violation of principles of natural justice, the same can be questioned on the well- known grounds attracting Article 14 but a claim biased on mere legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these principles. It can be one of the grounds to consider but the court must lift the veil and see whether the decision is violative of these principles warranting interference. It depends very much on the facts and the recognised general principles of administrative law applicable to such facts and the concept of legitimate expectation which is the latest recruit to a long list of concepts fashioned by the courts for the review of administrative action, must be restricted to the general legal limitations applicable and binding the manner of the future exercise of administrative power in a particular case. It follows that the concept of legitimate expectation is "ought not the key which unlocks the treasury of natural justice and it does not unlock the gate which shuts the court out of review on the merits," particularly when the elem