Judgment:
D. S. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Shri R. K. Ojha. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Shri S. K. Singh, learned counsel representing therespondent No. 2, and Shri Harihar Prasad Tripathi. learned standing counsel of the State of U. P.. representing the respondent No. 1.
2. From the pleadings contained in the petition, it appears that the petitioners had appeared in State Engineering Services (Special Recruitment) Examination, 1995. conducted by the respondent No. 2 for recruitment of S.C. and S.T. candidates. But they were not called for interview. Hence they approached this Court through present writ petitions praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to call them for interview.
3. Writ Petition No. 24157 of 1996. Rama Shankar Roy and others v. State of U. P. and another, was filed on 30th July, 1996 and Writ Petition No. 27203 of 1996, Neeraj Singh v. State of U. P. and another, was filed on 21st August, 1996. No interim order was passed by the Court. In the absence of any interim order passed by the Court, interviews were held and, it is not disputed, the final result was declared on 24th August. 1996.
4. The pleadings on record reveal that the petitioners were not called for interview as they were not found suitable therefor. The petitioners were Judged unsuitable for Interview inasmuch as they could not secure 40% minimum marks in aggregate which had been prescribed by the Commission for being adjudged to be suitable for being called for interview,
5. Relying upon the Government Order dated 10th May. 1976, a photocopy whereof is appended to the Writ Petition No. 24157 of 1996 as Annexure-4, learned counsel of the petitioners contends that the fixing of 40% minimum marks in aggregate forjudging the suitability of the candidate for being called for interview is illegal, and this requirement had to be relaxed in view of the Government Order dated 10th May, 1976.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, concedes that the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes. Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994. hereinafter called the 'Act', was applicable to the recruitment in question,
7. Section 3(4) of the Act contemplates that if the vacancies reserved under sub-section (1) remain unfilled even after recruitments held under sub-sections (1). (2) and (3) of the Section due to non-availability of suitable candidates, the vacancy may be carried over to the next year commencing from 1st of July, in which recruitment is to be made. The provisions contained in Section 3 clearly indicate that for selecting candidates in special recruitment, their suitability has to be judged. For judging the suitability of the candidates, it is necessary to prescribe minimum standard. The standard may be requirement of obtaining minimum marks in aggregate fixed by the examining body which in the instant case is the respondent No. 2. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel of the petitioners which prohibited the respondent No. 2 from fixing 40% minimum marks in aggregate for the purpose of judging the suitability of the candidates.
8. Further, requirement of securing 40% minimum marks in aggregate by the candidates appearing in the recruitment in question prescribed by the respondent No. 2 is not demonstrated to be arbitrary. Thus, the fixing of 40% minimum mark in aggregate by the respondent No. 2 does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by the Court.
9. Admittedly, the petitioners did not obtain 40% minimum marks in aggregate. Therefore, they wererightly not called for interview. The respondent No. 2 did not commit any error in not calling the petitioners for interview.
10. On the facts and circumstances noticed above, the Court is of the opinion that writ petitions lack merit. Accordingly, they are dismissed summarily.