$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: May 06, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 7222/2012
RAKESH KUMAR AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF NCT AND ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J. (ORAL)
1. None appears for the respondents in spite of the advance copy of the writ petition having been supplied before filing the writ petition which was listed on November 20, 2012 and not even today in spite of notice being issued.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners who gives up challenge to the vires of Rule 22 of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 which stipulates that inter-seniority of directly recruited Sub-Inspectors in Delhi Police shall be fixed on the basis of total marks obtained by them in the examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission as well as marks obtained after Police Training at an examination conducted by the Police Training School/College. However, counsel states that the grievance of an undue weightage to the marks obtained at the final examination after basic training at the Police W.P.(C) 7222/2012 Page 1 of 3 School/College, being unreasonable, requires the same to be declared arbitrary and unreasonable; suscept to favouritism and manipulation
3. As per the impugned decision of the Tribunal the Rule in question is intra-vires keeping in view the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as AIR 1978 SC 323 Ramesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Ors. and as regards the grievance of excessive weightage the same was immune to challenge as per the law declared in the decision reported as (2003) 2 SCC 632 P.U.Joshi vs. Accountant General.
4. Since we are remanding the matter to the Tribunal, we do not discuss much, but would highlight that the decision in P.U.Joshi's case (supra) pertains to rules governing service condition and hold that as the administrative exigencies may necessitate, the same can be altered from time to time. The decision has no application to policy decisions taken with respect to weightage to be given.
5. Since the challenge to the vires of the Rule has been given up, we need not discuss the applicability of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Prasad's case (supra).
6. There exists a catena of authorities that weightage to interviews cannot be excessive because of the subjectivity in an interview and also the possibility of manipulation for the reason the marks at the written examination are known. Similarly, after training, awarding of marks to candidates would be suscept to the same being manipulated and thus the need to be cautious.
7. From a perusal of the decision of the Tribunal we note that the Tribunal has noted that on the issue of weightage, only 20% weightage was being accorded to the marks obtained when selection was made and 80% weightage to the marks obtained after Police Training. The Tribunal has W.P.(C) 7222/2012 Page 2 of 3 also noted that for subsequent years the standing orders reduced the weightage to the marks obtained after police training and increased the weightage to the marks obtained at the selection process. But, what would be the boundary of reasonable weightage has not even been discussed by the Tribunal which simply noted that for subsequent years the department itself reduced the weightage.
8. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition restoring O.A. No.059/2010 with a direction to the Tribunal to decide the undecided issue as noted by us in para 7 above, i.e. reasonable limit of weightage.
9. We are not fixing a date for parties to appear before the Registrar of the Tribunal since unfortunately the respondents have chosen not to appear today. Thus, on an application being filed the Original Application shall be revived.
10. No costs.
11. DASTI.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (V. KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE MAY 06, 2013 skb W.P.(C) 7222/2012 Page 3 of 3