AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 268 wordsJagmohan Bansal, J
The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent to issue him appointment letter for the post of Female Constable (Sports).
The petitioner pursuant to Advertisement applied for the post of Sub Inspector (SI) under Sports Category. As per terms and conditions of the Advertisement, the petitioner was supposed to secure at least 50% Marks in Sports Trial. 20 Marks were ear-marked for Sports Trial, thus, every candidate was supposed to secure at least 10 Marks. The petitioner secured 09 Marks in the Sports Trial, thus, her candidature was rejected.
Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that posts under Sports Category are still lying vacant and this Court may relax condition of securing minimum 50% Marks in Sports Trial. He relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Dev Gupta Versus PEC University of Technology and Others, (2023) 20 SCC 166.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner could not secure 50% Marks in Sports Trial. She had applied under Sports Quota and Sports Trial was indispensable and integral part of the selection process. This Court cannot tinker with criteria prescribed by Recruitment Board. This Court has no power to direct respondent to ignore selection criteria. There is no violation of fundamental or vested right of petitioner on the part of respondent.
In the wake of above discussion and findings, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.