Frivolous reasons: HC frowns on denial of interview to candidate

The HC has also directed that even though the course for which the candidate was to be considered in April 2022 has already commenced, she should be considered for the next course and if successful she should get the seniority and consequential benefits of the original course.

The petitioner applied for the 29th SSC Women (NT) Course for OTA Chennai which was scheduled to commence in April 2022. The scheme of examination consisted of two stages, first being written examination and those who qualified the written examination, were invited for second stage i.e. interview for intelligence and personality test.

In December 2021, petitioner received a call letter for SSB interview wherein she was directed to report at Main Gate of Selection Centre South, Bangalore. According to the sCall letter, the petitioner was required to bring original documents mentioned therein.

According to petitioner, she appeared for the interview at the fixed day, time and place and after verification of her documents, she was not permitted to appear in the interview as on the said date she was not having her graduation degree/ provisional degree with her.

During the course of hearing counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that petitioner had graduated in History Honours from Delhi University in the year 2019; she met the eligibility criteria and at the time of verification of documents, she had produced the original marks sheet bearing the stamp of the college and signature of the college principal.

However, respondents discarded the same on the ground that as per UPSC recommendations, the marks sheet cannot be considered as proof of graduation.

The officials of the respondents told the petitioner that petitioner did not even present the bona fide issued by her college, in reply to which petitioner informed that bona fide is issued by the college only in respect of those who are yet to complete graduation and she was already graduate and had therefore presented her marks sheet, but no heed was paid to her requests. Petitioner further claims to have sent e-mail to respondents to re-conduct her interview, but to no avail.

The counsel for petitioner submitted that rejecting petitioners’ candidature solely on the basis of technicalities is not only harsh but arbitrary.