Read Time: 04 minutes

The Allahabad High Court on Monday asked the Secretary/Chairman of Uttar Pradesh Services Selection Board to reveal the marks given in the interview to two female candidates who had alleged that the department had deliberately not declared the marks obtained by candidates in the interview exam for the Excise constables recruitment process-2016. The final result of the process was declared last month.

The two candidates, Kumari Seema and Deeksha Katiyar had approached the high court contending that despite securing 56 marks out of total 60 in the physical test, they were ousted from the recruitment process. The selection for the said post was to be decided on the basis of the marks obtained in the physical test (60 marks) and interview exam (20 marks) only.

Petitioners' main contention was that firstly, the department had not declared the cut-off for the female Other Backward Classes (OBC) category in the recruitment process, and secondly, even the marks obtained by candidates in the interview exam were not published. Petitioners had alleged that due to this opacity, they were not able to understand their position in the said exam. 

It was also contended that declaration of the marks obtained in the interview exam or the cut off set for the OBC female category was essential because as per petitioners' own assessment, they had rightly answered 22 questions out of 25 asked in the interview, therefore, it was not possible that they could not secure even 8 marks, which would have made them cross the cut off declared for the OBC male category. 

On behalf of the petitioners, their counsels Advocates Shahnwaz Ahmad, Binod Kumar Mishra and Siddharth Singhal had urged the Court to issue direction to the authorities to declare the cut-off marks for OBC female category for the said exam.

However, the bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery noted that before anything, declaration of the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview exam is necessary and accordingly passed the order. 

Case Title: Seema And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others