JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Notice was wrongly sent to CBSE. Presence of Mr. Anil Kumar, advocate is dispensed with.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that petitioner has applied for the post of Manager with Reserve Bank of India and petitioner appeared in written examination in terms of the advertisement of the respondent and thereafter the petitioner has also received call letter for interview. Thereafter, the respondent has informed the petitioner vide their telegram (which is at page 23 of the paper-book) not to come to the interview as petitioner was not qualified in terms of eligibility qua experience. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that once the petitioner has passed the written test and has been short-listed for interview, the respondent ought not to have cancelled the interview. He has also relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Jaiswal Vs. M/s Devi Mukherjee and has also contended that the petitioner having once been called for interview, if he was not to be called for interview, an opportunity of being heard should have been given to the petitioner and he has relied upon Shwaran Kumar Jha Vs. State of Bihar .
3. I have perused through the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioner was required to appear in the written test as well as in the interview. At page 19 A of the paper-book is a letter addressed to the petitioner by the respondent. Paragraph 3 of the said letter is relevant. The same is reproduced below :
“The mere fact that an Admission Letter has been issued to you does not imply that your candidature has been finally cleared by the Board or that the entries made by you in your application for examination have been accepted by the Board as true and correct. It may be noted that the Board will take up the verification of eligibility conditions, i.e. age, educational, qualification and category (Scheduled Caste/Tribe/OBC), etc., with reference to original documents, only at the time of interview of candidates who qualify on the basis of the result of the written examination. You may, therefore, please note that if at any stage it is found that you do not satisfy the eligibility criteria as given in the advertisement or the information furnished by you in the application is incorrect, you candidature is liable to be cancelled forthwith with such further action as the Board/RBI may like to take. In this connection your attention is also drawn to instructions No. (xiv) of instructions for examination given overleaf.”
4. It is a common practice that when such kind of jobs are advertised, the number of applicants who are interested in job are much higher. In such an eventuality short-listing of the applicants is done by holding a written test and on the basis of written test short-listed candidates are called for interview. Once the petitioner was called for interview, it was realised by the respondent that the minimum experience which was stipulated in the advertisement was three years as on 1st April, 2002 after graduation whereas the petitioner has done his graduation only in August, 2000 and has not completed the minimum experience of three years as on 1st April, 2002. Petitioner applied in the quota of Scheduled Castes post as one post in the category of Scheduled Castes was reserved by the respondent. What has been argued by counsel for the petitioner is that relaxation in the case of a Scheduled Castes candidate ought to have been given by the respondent in experience also.
5. No relaxation has been provided in the case of a Scheduled Castes candidate for the purposes of experience in the offer of the respondent as stated in the advertisement. Reservation is provided to the post for which the petitioner has given the examination. If a relaxation is provided de hors the advertisement, then it will be creating chaos for all other categories as well as the category of Scheduled Castes. The authorities cited by the petitioner are also of no help to the petitioner.
6. No ground to interfere.
7. Dismissed.