' The petitioner was a candidate for the post of Police Constable. In the written examination he secured 79 out of 100 marks. He was called for interview. It is averred in para. 1 of the petition that the only question put to the petitioner in the interview was as to how he managed to get 79 out of 100 marks. In the comments, this averment has not even been denied. It was suspected that somebody had impersonated for him in the written examination. Accordingly case F.I.R. No,500 of 1998 under section 419 of the P.P.C. Was registered against the petitioner on 21-9-1998. He was arrested but released on bail. The case was investigated, the answer-sheets and specimen Urdu writing of the petitioner were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. According to the report of the said Laboratory, the disputed writing in the answer-sheets bore identical characteristics with the specimen Urdu writing of the petitioner. Accordingly, the case was cancelled. Thereafter the petitioner applied to the S.S.P. For his appointment as Constable. The said application did not invoke any response on which the petitioner approached this Court seeking a.
Direction for his appointment as a constable.
2. In the report and parawise comments it is not denied that the criminal case against the petitioner was not cancelled. The only plea raised in defence to this writ petition is that the petitioner did not qualify the interview.
3. On 23-1-2001, the official of the S.S.P. Office had produced a list of successful candidates according to which the petitioner secured highest marks in the written examination. The said list, however, did not indicate that the candidates were also put to interview, nor the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview were indicated in the said list. Therefore, the learned Additional Advocate-General was directed to make available the record of the interview.
4. The official from the office of S.S.P. Has appeared today and has produced the same, list. He submits that after the interview a final merit list was also prepared and since the petitioner had failed to qualify the interview, he was not selected. Neither the final merit list nor the record of interview was produced. On being questioned the representative of the office of S.S.P. Was not able to tell how many marks were reserved for interview and what the qualifying marks in the interview were. Selection solely on the basis of interview without regard to performance in the written examination cannot be said to be an acceptable mode of selection because in that case the Appointing Authority will have absolute discretion to reject or accept a candidate at its sweet-will, besides rendering the written examination a meaningless formality. It may be added that when selection is to be based on written examination and the interview then the marks allocated for interview should bear a reasonable proportion to the marks for written examination because allocation of excessive marks for interview may also invest arbitrary discretion in the selection authority. The total marks obtained by a candidate in the written examination and the interview should be the basis for selection. The petitioner was a victim of suspicion that somebody else had appeared in his place in the written examination which proved to be wrong.
5. On being questioned the departmental representative informed that a few posts of constables were still available. I am of the view that candidature of the petitioner was not duly considered on the basis of his performance in the written examination and he was ignored in an arbitrary manner.
This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that the respondent shall re-consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as a constable. No order as to costs.