Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7103 (GAU)

ANKIT JOHRI v. OIL INDIA LTD. and 4 ORS

WP(C)/1340/2013 · 2025-07-23

N Unni Krishnan Nair

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/17 GAHC010024452013 2025:GAU-AS:9528 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1340/2013 ANKIT JOHRI S/O SHRI RAJ KUMAR JOHRI R/O A-2, KASHMIRI KOTHI CAMPUS, MINI BYPASS, IZZATNAGAR, BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH. VERSUS OIL INDIA LTD. and 4 ORS REGISTERED OFFICE DULIAJAN, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM- 786602, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2:RESIDENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OIL INDIA LTD. PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH. 3:SHRI JOYJIT DAS S/O UNKNOWN C/O R/O CHIEF EXECUTIVE OIL INDIA LTD PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH. 4:SHRI SIDHARTHA SATTIRAJU S/O UNKNOWN C/O R/O CHIEF EXECUTIVE OIL INDIA LTD PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH. Page No.# 2/17 5:SHRI PUNJ SIDHARTH S/O UNKNOWN C/O R/O CHIEF EXECUTIVE OIL INDIA LTD PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S DEY, MD S ALI,MR. M DASGUPTA,MR.M GOSWAMI,MR.A SARMA,MR.S DAS,MR.T BARUAH,MR.R DUBEY Advocate for the Respondent : MR.K KALITA, MS N DEKARAJA (R-4),MR. Y S MANNAN (R- 4),MR.A SARMAH,,MR.S N SARMA,SC, OIL,MR.A JAHID BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date: 24.07.2025 Heard Mr. M. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, OIL, representing the respondent no. 1, & 2 as well as Mr. Y. S. Mannan, learned counsel, representing the respondent no. 4. 2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding has prayed for the following reliefs: - “I. Issued a writ and order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire Selection Result and consequent recruitment of the Respondents No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 after calling for the records of the Selection Process on the six posts of Executive Trainee (Reservoir Engineering) in the year 2009/2010 and. II. Issue an order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to issue an appointment order appointing the petitioner on the post of Executive Trainee (Reservoir Engineering) and.” Page No.# 3/17 3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceeding is noticed herein below: - The petitioner, in pursuance to a notice issued by the respondent no. 1, inviting applications, amongst others, for the vacant post of Executive Trainee (Reservoir Engineer), had submitted his application. The petitioner being found to be eligible to participate in the selection process, he was directed vide a communication dated 11.05.2010 to appear in the selection process, which included a Written Examination followed by Group Discussion and Viva-Voce. The petitioner, on 06.06.2010, appeared for the Written Examination followed by Group Discussion and Interview, which was held on 07.06.2010. A total of 27 candidates, including the petitioner were declared successful in the Written Examination. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the Interview. As the petitioner was awaiting declaration of the results of the selection process, he could come to learn, in the month of June 2011 that the recruitment process for the post of Executive Trainee (Reservoir Engineer) was already completed in the month of December, 2010/January, 2011; and the petitioner was not selected. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application, invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (In short, the Act of 2005), seeking information with regard to the performance of the shortlisted candidates in the Written Examination, Group Discussion and Interview and the marks obtained by them therein. The Public Information Officer of the respondent no. 1, vide communication dated 12.09.2011, while providing the marks obtained by the petitioner in the selection process, refused to provide the marks obtained by the other 26 candidates in the various stages of the selection process. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority of the respondent no. 1, however, the said appeal not being considered, the petitioner approached the Central Information Commission with his grievance. The Central Information Commissioner, vide order dated 25.07.2012, decided the appeal and directed the Public Information Officer of the respondent no. 1 Company to communicate the correct marks awarded to the petitioner in the selection list as well as Page No.# 4/17 the true meaning of the expression “Average of Part B of the Viva-Voce comes to 22.9 which is less than the qualified/pass marks of 25”. The information having not been furnished to the petitioner, the petitioner requested the Central Public Information Officer of the respondent no. 1 to comply with the orders of the Central Information Commissioner, vide his communication dated 15.10.2012. Thereafter, vide a communication dated 16.10.2012, the Central Public Information Officer of the respondent no. 1 furnished the marks awarded to the petitioner in the various stages of the selection process and also in the same communication, it was disclosed that the expression “Average of Part B of the Viva-Voce comes to 22.9 which is less than the qualified/pass marks of 25” to mean that the Part-B of the Viva-Voce consisted of 70 marks and Part-A thereof, consisted of 20 marks and assessment thereon is based on marks obtained by the candidates in his educational qualifications and Part-B is of 50 marks and assessment is based on Professional knowledge, Skills, Personal attributes and General proficiency. It was further disclosed that the minimum qualification marks in Part-B is 25 marks out of 50 and the grand total of Part-A and Part-B of the Viva-Voce is 70. The petitioner was thereafter, vide communication dated 31.10.2010, was required to visit the Field Headquarter Office at Duliajan, to inspect the documents pertaining to the selection and the date for the same was so fixed between 14.11.2012 to 17.11.2012, during working hours of the respondent no. 1 Company. The petitioner, not being in a position to appear for the inspection between the period so prescribed, the petitioner vide communication dated 04.11.2012, requested the respondent no. 1 Company to allow him inspection w.e.f. 25.11.2012 onwards and had stated therein that, he would be inspecting the documents so mentioned in the said communication. Ultimately, the petitioner was permitted to inspect the documents on any working day w.e.f. 22.01.2013 to 25.01.2013. Accordingly, the petitioner proceeded for the inspection with the help of an assistance of his Uncle who was a Lawyer. However, the petitioner was not permitted to allow his Uncle to accompany him for the said inspection and the petitioner, vide his communication dated 22.01.2013, requested the Central Public Information Officer to Page No.# 5/17 provide attested/certified copies of the documents as was mentioned by him, in his communication dated 22.01.2013. The Central Public Information Officer, vide order dated 23.01.2023, declined the request of the petitioner and had for the purpose, referred to the directions passed by the Central Information Commission Officer in this connection. The petitioner has contended that in terms of the information furnished to him, he had secured 72.5 marks out of 100 in the Written Examination; 16.2 marks out of 100 in the Group Discussion and 38.1 marks out of 70 in the Viva-Voce Examination. The petitioner, accordingly being aggrieved with his non-selection as well as the provision made for allotting disproportionate marks for the Viva Voce component in comparison to that apportioned for the written examination, as well as the prescription made for cut off marks for the Part-B section of the interview process, without disclosure of the same to the candidates before initiation of the selection process, proceeded to institute the present writ petition, assailing the said selection process. 4. Mr. M. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the materials available on record, has at the outset, submitted that the guidelines followed by the Selection Committee for conducting the selection as well as prescription therein, with regard to the minimum marks required to be scored by a candidate at the various segments of the selection process, was never disclosed to the candidates before the conduct of the selection process and accordingly, he submits that the transparency required to be maintained in the selection process was violated. With regard to the Viva- Voce segment of the said selection process, the petitioner, by referring to the marks as allotted to Part-B segment thereof, has contended that he was given less than 20 marks out of 50 marks therein, by all the members for the components Professional knowledge and Skills. He has submitted that the Viva-Voce cannot be treated to be an elimination round and the manner in which, the marks were so assigned for the Part-B segment of the said Viva-Voce, there arose a situation wherein manipulation was permissible to be done by the Selection Committee members in the matter. Page No.# 6/17 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking this Court to the marks assigned to various components of the selection process has submitted that the marks assigned to the Viva-Voce component is abnormally high and the same is in the teeth of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court applicable in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner cannot be non-suited on the ground of assailing the selection process after participating therein, inasmuch as, he was not in the knowhow of the manner in which the marks were assigned to various segments of the selection process and also the requirement of a candidate to acquire a cut off marks in the Viva-Voce segment, more particularly Part-B, thereof. He has submitted that the said information having been furnished to the petitioner only upon submission of an application invoking the provisions of the RTI, Act 2005 and that too after abnormal delay, the petitioner could not have challenged the said selection process in absence of the said information furnished to him under the provisions of the said Act of 2005. 6. With regard to the stand taken by the respondent Company in its affidavit that the procedure for selection followed in the selection in question in the present proceeding, was the same selection process followed for recruitment for the past five years w.e.f. 2011, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said contention of the respondents was so made without bringing on record, requisite materials to affirm the said position. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the selection committee as constituted in the matter was altered with the inclusion of a Deputy Chief Engineer in place of a Chief Geologist and the person included, did not have the requisite professional qualification for assessing the suitability of candidates appearing in the selection process for the post in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the procedure adopted by the respondent Company is not a fair and reasonable one and the same lacked transparency, fairness and reasonableness. He has submitted that the necessity of Viva-Voce being conducted while not being disputed, the prescription of cut off marks therein, and non-disclosure of the same to the candidates Page No.# 7/17 before the process of selection is clearly arbitrary and unjustified. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that given the marks scored by the petitioner in the various stages of the selection process, on an aggregation thereof, removing the cut off marks prescribed for the Viva-Voce components, the petitioner would automatically stand selected for the post in question. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to an order dated 06.10.2015, passed by this Court in the present proceedings, has submitted that the respondent no. 6 & 7 having left the establishment of the respondent Company, during the pendency of the present writ petition, this Court had observed that there is no bar for the respondent Company to consider the case of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of Executive Trainee (Reservoir Engineer), however, he has submitted that the said exercise was not carried out by the respondent Company to the prejudice of the petitioner herein. 9. In support of his submission, the petitioner has referred to the following decisions: - (i) Mohindar Sain Garg Vs State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (1991) 1 SCC 662. (ii) Barot VijayKumar Balakrishan and Ors., Vs Modh Vinakumar Dasrathilal & Ors., reported in (2011) 7 SCC 308. (iii) Himani Malhotra Vs High Court of Delhi, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11. 10. Per contra, Mr. A. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 has submitted that the Written Examination is an elimination round and a candidate to clear the written examination must score 50% marks therein. The shortlisted candidates are thereafter, called for a group discussion and a total of 30 marks is earmarked for the Group Discussion component and the candidate concerned must secure at least 15% marks therein. However, the Group Discussion is not treated as an elimination round and the candidates are allowed to participate for the Viva-Voce segment of the selection process, even if, one does not secure the minimum pass marks in the Group Discussion segment. He has submitted that the Viva-Voce segment of the selection process, 70 marks Page No.# 8/17 are earmarked which is further sub-divided into two parts i.e., Part-A and Part-B. The marks assigned for Part-A of the Viva-Voce is 20 marks and the same pertains to an assessment made on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidate in his educational qualifications and there is no cut off marks assigned for Part-A of the Viva-Voce segment. Insofar as, the Part-B of the Viva-Voce segment is concerned, 50 marks was assigned for the same and the assessment was to be made basing on the Professional knowledge, Skills, Personal attributes and General Proficiency of the candidate concerned. He submits that the candidates appearing in the Viva-Voce is required to secure a minimum of 25 marks in Part-B segment of the same and in the event, the candidate fails to secure 25 marks, he is held to have failed in the Viva-Voce segment and his case is not further considered for the recruitment in question. A candidate securing 25 marks in the Part-B of the Viva-Voce segment is placed in the final selection basing on the aggregate marks scored by him in the various segments of the selection process. 11. Insofar as, the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner in the Part-B segment of the Viva-Voce, having scored only 22.9, which being below the qualifying marks of 25, the petitioner was held to have failed in the Part-B stage of the Viva-Voce examination and accordingly, it was not permissible to have his case considered any further in the recruitment process. The Selection Committee, on conclusion of the selection process, had selected 6 nos. of candidates, who has qualified in all the segments of the selection process and having subjected them to a medical examination, one of the candidate was declared unfit. The selected candidates had joined the establishment but, subsequently the respondent nos. 3, 5, 6 & 7 had left the establishment on various dates in the year 2013 and 2014. He has further submitted that the post falling vacant on the respondent nos. 3, 5, 6 & 7 leaving the Company, was so put up for recruitment through an open competition held in the year 2019-2020. 12. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel has submitted that from the case projected by the petitioner in the writ petition, it is seen that he has not alleged malafide on the part of the respondent Company in selecting the private respondents. He has further submitted that Page No.# 9/17 there is no pleading bringing on record alleging malafide against the members of the Selection Committee and they were also not arrayed as respondents in the present writ petition. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel has contended that the petitioner, having taken part in the selection process without any protest, cannot now be permitted to question the selection process involved. He has submitted that it is a settled position of law that having participated in the selection process without raising any objection, the unsuccessful candidate, cannot turn around and question the validity of the selection process and its outcome. He submits that a presumption in favour of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee to have been so made, by following the procedure laid down, the recommendation so made by the Selection Committee cannot be doubted without alleging malafides or favouritism against the members of the Committee, in the manner so required. 13. With regard to the prescription of cut off marks in the selection process, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 & 2 has submitted that the same is not the case of changing eligibility criterias midway, as the guidelines for selection of Executive Trainee was formulated before the selection process had started and by referring to the contentions made in this connection in Paragraph-26 of the affidavit-in-opposition, he submits that the said contentions so made in Paragraph-26 have remained uncontroverted. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 has submitted that the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would go to reveal that there cannot be any hard and fast rule of universal application for allocating marks on Viva-Voce vis-à-vis the marks for Written Examination and the same would depend on the facts and circumstances of each recruitment process. In support of such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: - (i) Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (1981) 4 SCC 159. (ii) All India State Bank Officer’s Federation & Ors., Vs Union of India & Ors., reported in (1997) 9 SCC 151. Page No.# 10/17 (iii) Jasvinder Singh & Ors., Vs State of J & K and Ors., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 132. 15. By again referring to the contentions made in Paragraph-26 of the affidavit-in- opposition, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 had submitted that the procedure as followed in the recruitment process involved in the present writ petition was the same process followed by the respondent Company during the period 2008-2012. He has submitted that the respondent no. 1 Company is within its right to fix qualifying marks in the various segments of the selection process, as in absence of fixed norms; there would be no uniformity in assessing suitability in the Viva-Voce test. He has submitted that a procedure being in place for a period of 5 years prior to the initiation of the recruitment process in question in the present proceeding, the contention of the petitioner that non-communication of the same to the candidates vitiates the selection process, would not mandate acceptance by this Court. He further submits that a principle of natural justice would not apply to a competitive examination. In support of his such contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 has relied upon the following decisions: - (i) Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs Rafiquddin, reported in 1987 (Suppl) SCC 401. (ii) Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehmood Alam Tariq & Ors., Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (1988) 3 SCC 241. (iii) Decision of this Court in the case of Jahiruddin Ahmed Vs State of Assam, reported in (2014) 5 GLR 285. 16. In summing up, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 has submitted that the employer can formulate its own procedure to allot marks and the petitioner would have no right to decide the procedure required by the employer to be adopted by the Selection Committee. In the above premises, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 has submitted that the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance by this Court. 17. Mr. Y. S. Mannan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4, while Page No.# 11/17 adopting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 & 2 has submitted that the criteria for evaluation of a candidate’s performance in an interview may be diverse and some of it may be subjective. However, having submitted to the interview process without any demand or protest, the same cannot be permitted to be challenged subsequently; simply because the candidate’s personal evaluation of his performance was higher than the marks awarded by the panel. He has submitted that because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors., Vs State of J & K and Ors., reported in (2023) LiveLaw SC 253. 18. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials placed on record. 19. The facts as noticed herein above are not in dispute. From the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the matter, it is seen that the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the recruitment process as undertaken by the respondent no. 1 Company in pursuance to the advertisement in question, is in relation to the marks allocated for the Viva-Voce segment of the recruitment process and further, the prescription of a cut off marks in the Viva-Voce segment. In terms of the allocation of marks made for the recruitment in question, the materials on record reveal that for the Written Examination segment, 100 marks were earmarked while for the Group Discussion also 100 marks was so prescribed. Further, the Viva-Voce segment of the said recruitment process was further sub divided into two parts, i.e. Part-A and Part-B. For Part-A, 20 marks were earmarked and the same was to be so awarded on the basis of the candidate’s educational qualification/background. For Part-B of the Viva-Voce segment of the recruitment process, 50 marks were to be so awarded. The said marks were to be awarded on the basis of the candidate’s professional knowledge and skills, personal attributes, proficiency in extracurricular activities. The said marks were to be so awarded Page No.# 12/17 on the satisfaction of the Selection Committee Members. 20. This Court, at the outset, would like to examine the objection raised by the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4 that the petitioner having participated in the selection process without any protest, he on becoming unsuccessful therein, cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the same. While it is a settled position of law that a candidate who had participated in a selection process without protest, on becoming unsuccessful therein, cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the same, however, in the present proceeding, it being the categorical stand of the petitioner, that at start of the selection process, nor during its conduct, he was not made aware of the allocation of marks for the various segments of the selection process as well as prescription of cut off marks, and such information having been furnished to him only after conclusion of the selection process, it would not be permissible to non-suit him on the said ground. 21. Considering the projections made by the petitioner in the writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that it would not be permissible to non-suit the petitioner basing on the objection raised by the respondents. Accordingly, the said objections raised by the respondents stand rejected. The contention raised by the petitioner is being considered on its merit. 22. The first contention raised by the petitioner in the present proceeding is with regard to grant of excessive marks in the Viva-Voce segment of the said recruitment process. 23. On a close examination of the distribution of marks for the various components of the recruitment process, this Court finds that for the Part-B of the Viva-Voce segment of the recruitment process that, 50 marks were so allotted and the same had a subjective element attached to it, inasmuch as, the said marks were to be so awarded by the Selection Committee on an assessment made by them of the candidates appearing before them in the recruitment process. The said 50 marks having a subjective element involved, it is to be seen as to whether in the context of the recruitment process, the marks so Page No.# 13/17 awarded is excessive thereby providing the Selection Committee Members scope to manipulate the merit of the candidates in the recruitment process. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the marks allotted for the Viva-Voce segment being 35% of the total marks, the same being excessive, the recruitment process would mandate interference by this Court, inasmuch as, there arises a genuine apprehension, in view of the marks available at the hands of the Selection Committee Members, of manipulation being permissible to be made of the merit of the candidates. 25. It is a settled position of law that there cannot be any hard and fast rule of universal application for allocating marks for the Viva-Voce segment vis-à-vis the other segments of the recruitment process. The allocation of marks for the Viva-Voce segment would depend upon the nature of the duties attached to the post put up for recruitment. 26. As noticed herein above, it was only 50 marks allotted for the Part-B of the recruitment process that have a subjective element attached to it. In the context of the marks allotted to the various segments of the recruitment process, it is seen that the marks allotted for the Part-B component of the recruitment process worked out to around 25% marks so allotted to the various segments of the recruitment process. 27. The apprehension raised by the petitioner of manipulation being permissible in view of the high marks allotted for Viva-Voce segment of the recruitment process, in the considered view of this Court, would not mandate acceptance, inasmuch as the petitioner had not alleged any malafide against any of the Selection Committee Members, and the Selection Committee Members were not arrayed as party respondents in the present proceeding. While, it is always preferrable to disclose the marks allocated for the various segments of a recruitment process in the advertisement itself, the non-disclosure of the same, in the considered view of this Court, in the facts and circumstances arising in the matter, would not be fatal to the recruitment process so undertaken by the authorities of the respondent no. 1 Company. Page No.# 14/17 28. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now proceed to examine the further contention of the petitioner that fixation of the qualifying marks in the Part-B of the Viva-Voce segment of the selection process being so made after the recruitment process was started, the same not having been disclosed to the candidates appearing in the recruitment process, the recruitment process stood vitiated. 29. The respondent nos. 1 & 2 in their affidavit as well as the counsel representing them, during the hearing of the present writ petition, had categorically contended that the recruitment procedure as followed for the recruitment in question in the present proceeding is the same recruitment process followed by the respondent no. 1 Company for the last 5 years prior to the recruitment process involved in the present proceeding. It is submitted that the said recruitment process was formulated by the authorities of the respondent no. 1 Company and the same was followed by the Selection Committee in the various recruitment held after its formulation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 that the communication dated 17.05.2010, issued towards constituting the selection committee had as its enclosure, the guidelines formulated by the respondent Company for distribution of marks for the various segments of the selection process. It is submitted that the said guidelines including the manner in which the marks are allocated for the different segments as well as the requirement of a candidate achieving the cut off marks in the various components of the recruitment process was prescribed prior to the recruitment process involved in the present writ petition. As noticed herein above, the written examination was conducted on 06.06.2010 and the Viva-Voce was held on 07.06.2010, the guidelines for allocation of marks, as well as prescription therein of cut off marks being so made by the respondent Company much prior to the initiation of the selection process, following the formulation of such procedure much earlier, recruitment being contended to have been carried out by applying such procedure, no prejudice can be found to have been caused to any candidate in the selection process, including the petitioner herein. 30. A perusal of the allocation of marks as contained in the enclosure to the Page No.# 15/17 communication dated 17.05.2010, would go to reveal that in addition to prescribing a cut off marks for the Part-B segment of the recruitment process, the authorities had also prescribed a cut off marks for the written examination. The petitioner, in the present proceeding, has not objected to the cut off marks so prescribed for the written tests and has only assailed the cut off marks prescribed for the Part-B segment of the recruitment process. The petitioner, admittedly, had not scored 25 marks in the Part-B segment of the Viva-Voce component of the recruitment process and accordingly, his case was not considered further for recruitment to the concerned post. It being the categorical contention of the respondent nos. 1 & 2 that the said recruitment process was not in vogue in the Company and selections carried out thereunder for a period of 5 years prior to the date of the recruitment exercise involved in the present proceeding, this Court is of the considered view that the non-disclosure of the said guidelines to the intending candidates is not fatal to the recruitment in question. 31. The petitioner, in his rejoinder to the affidavit filed by the respondents, more particularly, to the contentions made in Paragraph-26 had only contended that no evidence was produced by the respondents that the procedure followed for the recruitment process on hand, was the same being followed in the respondent no. 1 Company since last 5 years prior to the initiation of the present recruitment process. It was further contended that the recruitment process, in view of the excessive marks allotted to the Viva-Voce segment of the recruitment process was contrary to the decision of the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (1985) 4 SCC 417. 32. A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra), would bring to the forefront that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the said case, had laid down that there cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the weight to be given against the written examination and it must vary from service to service according to the requirement of the service. It further held that the same was a matter of determination by the experts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision had held Page No.# 16/17 that in the case of Liladhar (supra), allotment of 25% marks for the Viva-Voce component was upheld. 33. In the present case also, this Court having noticed that only 25% marks was allotted for the Viva-Voce component out of entire marks allotted for the various components of the recruitment process, i.e. to say that that the Selection Committee Members had only 50 marks at their disposal, which was to be awarded basing on a subjective assessment of the performance of the candidate in the interview process, in absence of any allegation of malafide against the Selection Committee Members, this Court would not proceed to hold that such prescription of marks to be either excessive having the effect of vitiating the recruitment process undertaken. 34. In view of the conclusions drawn herein above, the two grounds raised by the petitioner for assailing the recruitment process would not mandate acceptance and the same stands rejected. 35. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would consider the contentions raised by the petitioner by referring to an order dated 06.10.2025, passed by this Court in the present proceeding that, there vacancies having arisen, more particularly, with the respondent nos. 6 & 7, leaving their services with the respondent no. 1 Company after their appointment in pursuance to the recruitment process, in question, in the present proceeding, the petitioner ought to be considered for appointment against the same. 36. It is an admitted position that the respondent nos. 6 & 7 in pursuance to their selection in the recruitment process, in question, were offered appointments and, on acceptance of such offer of appointment, they had joined their services. 37. It is a settled position of law that the posts advertised being filled up by appointing the selected candidates, the select list in question, losses its validity. In the present case, the post involved were filled up and accordingly, the select list after filling up of the vacancies involved lost its validity and cannot be held to be subsisting. The vacancies arising against the post of Executive Engineer (Reservoir Engineer), on the subsequent Page No.# 17/17 resignation of the candidates appointed against the said post in pursuance to the recruitment process in question, in the present proceeding, would be fresh vacancies and the same would not permissible to be filled up from a select list that had already lost its validity. The fresh vacancies so arising would be permissible to be filled up by way of initiation of a fresh process of recruitment by following the process of recruitment mandated. 38. The respondents have, in the present proceeding, brought on record the fact that 4 persons who were recruited in pursuance to the recruitment process in question, in the present proceeding, against the post of Executive Trainee (Reservoir Engineer) after joining their services had left their posts and the vacancies so arising in the said cadre were filled up through an open competition in the year 2019-20. Accordingly, in view of the above, the petitioner would not be entitled to a direction for consideration of his case, against the vacancy arising in pursuance to the resignations submitted by the respondent nos. 3, 5, 6 & 7. 39. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case, requiring the interference of this Court in the matter. 40. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the conclusions reached by this Court herein above, would not mandate a detailed consideration and this Court is of the view that the said decisions would not advance the case of the petitioner herein. 41. Accordingly, for the reasons cited above, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same consequently, stands set aside. However, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant