HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 4916 of 2024 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Kirit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents as well as Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the Commission. 2. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits thus with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the admission stage. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that an advertisement came to be published by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission for being advertisement No. 15(6)/2015 for appointment on the post of Cartographer. As many as 39 posts of Cartographer came to be advertised, bifurcation whereof 19 unreserved, 11 SC, 2 ST and 7 OBC. The writ petitioner claiming himself to be eligible in all respects applied in pursuance of the said advertisement. The selection was based upon interview. A screening was done on the basis of the testimonials of the respective candidates. Subsequently, on 18.11.2022, the consolidated list of candidates came to be published invited for interview for the post in question. As per the same, those candidates who have secured percentage upto or above, the cut off (percentage) published by the Commission notice dated 14.11.2022 and who were not included in the interview list, were given an opportunity to submit their representation along with essential education/ other required documents to the Commission. Thereafter the interview was scheduled of 357 candidates by the Commission vide notice dated 18.11.2022 and 28 candidates were invited for interview on the basis of the representation totaling to 385 and the same stood published in the Commission's website vide notice dated 02.02.2024. The interview of 385 candidates was conducted in the office of Commission from 20.02.2024 to 24.02.2024 and the cut off marks of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Kirit Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Siddharth Singhal Krishna Kumar Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) total 39 candidates (whereof 19 unreserved, 11 SC, 2 ST and 7 OBC) was uploaded on the website of the Commission on 13.03.2024. In the interview dates, the writ petitioner is stated to have been secured only 8 marks and the last selected candidates obtained 16 marks. Since according to the writ petitioner, he had obtained at the screening level quality point marks 83.97 so the writ petitioner preferred the present writ petition with a direction to the Commission to select the writ petitioner on the post of Cartographer in pursuance of the said advertisement. 4. This Court entertained the writ petition on 01.04.2024 sought counter affidavit. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by Examination Controller of the Commission dated 01.07.2024 on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondents in denying appointment to the selection and appointment of the writ petitioner on the post of Cartographer cannot be sustained even for a single moment. Elaborating the said submission, it is contended that once the writ petitioner was permitted to appear in the interview then it pre-supposes that the writ petitioner was fully eligible and qualified and according to the writ petitioner, he had secured quality point marks being 83.97, however, the candidates at page-37 of the paperbook at serial no. 13, 14 and 17 being Maha Pratap Singh, Mohammad Arif and Vishal Kumar Tripathi had obtained marks being 74.13, 82.54 and 83.65 which was below the marks obtained by the writ petitioner under the para-meter of quality point marks thus merely because the writ petitioner has obtained 8 marks in interview and the cut off marks was 16 cannot be a ground to negate the claim of the writ petitioner. He further submits that even the unreserved candidate has been adjusted under the general category quota which is illegal and he seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India; 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 354. 7. Sri Manish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the Commission on the other hand submits that mere participate in the interview on the basis of the screening so conducted would not be a ground to accord any benefit, particularly, when the marks obtained in screening are not to be considered and taken into consideration for selection as the purpose of screening is to restrict the number of candidates to appear in the interview as what would be relevant is the marks obtained in the interview as the interview is the only basis for conducting selections. They submits that there happens to be a Government order dated 25.03.1994, according to which if a candidate WRIA No. 4916 of 2024 2 belonging to reserved category competes when the general category and he obtains the required marks then he is to be adjusted against the general category. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 9. Apparently, an advertisement came to be published by the Commission for recruitment on the post of Cartographer in pursuance of being advertisement No. 15(6)/2015. As many as 39 posts of Cartographer came to be advertised (bifurcation whereof 19 unreserved, 11 SC, 2 ST and 7 OBC). The writ petitioner on representation was found to have cleared the screening test, however, in the interview, the writ petitioner obtained 8 marks which is much below the cut off being 16 marks. The parties are in agreement that the criteria for selection is interview. 10. As a matter of fact, the marks awarded in screening are not taken into consideration once the selections is based upon the interview only. Merely because the writ petitioner obtained higher marks over and above the cut off marks in screening would not be a ground to hold the writ petitioner to be eligible, particularly, when the writ petitioner obtained marks lesser than cut off marks in interview. 11. As regard, the judgment in Deepa E.V. (supra) is concerned, the same would not apply, particularly, herein in the present case, there happens to be a Government order dated 25.03.1994 providing that in case an reserved category candidate competes with the general category and obtained the required marks then he is to be treated to be under general category. 12. Accordingly, no good ground is made for interference, the writ petition stands dismissed. March 19, 2026 Ashu WRIA No. 4916 of 2024 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad