https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174491 The Court held that the allocation of marks for interview and group discussion by the U.P. State Electricity Board exceeded permissible limits, deeming it arbitrary. It was determined that marks for interview and group discussion should not exceed 10% and 5% of total marks, respectively. While the selection process was challenged, the Court did not quash it entirely due to the appellants' employment and equity considerations. Future selections were directed to adhere to revised percentage limits, and the existing selection of Assistant Engineers (Civil) was upheld. Each party was directed to bear their own costs. en-us Fri, 10 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Nov 2016 12:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174491 The Court held that the allocation of marks for interview and group discussion by the U.P. State Electricity Board exceeded permissible limits, deeming it arbitrary. It was determined that marks for interview and group discussion should not exceed 10% and 5% of total marks, respectively. While the selection process was challenged, the Court did not quash it entirely due to the appellants' employment and equity considerations. Future selections were directed to adhere to revised percentage limits, and the existing selection of Assistant Engineers (Civil) was upheld. Each party was directed to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174491