$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1133/2014
% Date of decision: 28th May, 2014
SUNIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.U.Srivastava, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Saqib, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12 th December, 2013 passed in O.A.No.2811/2012. The facts giving rise to the instant petition, to the extent necessary, are briefly noted hereafter.
2. It appears that the respondent notified an advertisement for the post of Security Assistant (Executive) Group-C (Non Gazetted & Non Ministerial) in General Category for their Centre of Leh in Jammu & Kashmir. It is the admitted position that out of 15 vacancies, 8 were unreserved whereas four vacancies were reserved for OBC candidates, one for SC and two for ST candidates. W.P.(C)1133/2014 Page 1 of 6
3. The respondents have disclosed that 5,31,499 candidates had applied for 648 posts. Since it was difficult task to scrutinize the applications, the respondents had outsourced scrutinizy of all the applications as well as the work of feeding of data of eligible candidates, issue of admit cards for objective type test, evaluation of OMR sheets and preparation of result of written examination to M/s C.S.Datamation Research Services Pvt. Ltd, a private firm.
4. It is also an undisputed position that the petitioner appeared in the examination in the unreserved general category against Roll No.1300098 in the examination which was held on 26 th September, 2010. The petitioner was declared successful in the written examination. He was called for interview on 15th May, 2011.
5. The final result of the examination was published in the Employment News dated 20-26th August, 2011. In this result, Jagdish Prasad an OBC category candidate was shown as a successful candidate against the Roll No.13000098 whereas the petitioner was a general category candidate who had been assigned the same roll number.
6. For the reason that no appointment letter was issued to the W.P.(C)1133/2014 Page 2 of 6 petitioner, he assailed the action of the respondent by way of O.A.No.2811/2012.
7. The respondent explained the manner in which the examination was conducted as well as the fact that the scrutiny having been outsourced to the private firm. It is pointed out that out of 531499 candidates only 2,08,347 candidates (39%) could appear in the examination. This appears to be on account of errors on the part of the said outsourced firm. As a result, the respondents took a decision to give a chance to those 61% candidates who were unable to appear in the written examination held on 26th September, 2010.
The firm was required to issue roll numbers and fresh admit cards to such candidates who were unable to appear in the September, 2010 examination.
8. Unfortunately, M/s C.S.Datamation Research Services Pvt. Ltd. defaulted yet again. It appears that the firm issued admit cards to the candidates who were to appear in the examination which was to be held on 16th November, 2010, with the same series of roll numbers as had been assigned to candidates who had appeared in the examination on 26th September, 2010. Several instances of the duplication have W.P.(C)1133/2014 Page 3 of 6 been noted in the impugned order.
9. It was pointed out to the Tribunal and has been noted in the impugned order that for instance, at the Leh Centre, there were 2051 eligible candidates and the series of roll numbers assigned by the firm were from 13000001 to 13002051. As 1023 number of candidates had appeared on 26th September, 2010, a total number of 1028 candidates who could not appear in this examination were to appear on 16th January, 2011. Instead of assigning roll numbers other than those already assigned, the firm issued the same series of roll numbers i.e. 13000001 to 13001028 to the candidates who were to appear in the examination held on 16th January, 2011.
10. As a result while the petitioner had been assigned the roll number 13000098 for the examination held on 26 th September, 2010, the firm assigned this very roll number to one Jagdish Prasad, an OBC candidate for the examination which was to be held on 16 th January, 2011.
11. It is also on record that the petitioner had secured 99 marks out of 200 marks in the general category.
12. The record shows that candidates of general category who W.P.(C)1133/2014 Page 4 of 6 secured 130 marks and above out of 200 marks were included in the merit list against 22 candidates meant for general category candidates. The petitioner, therefore, could not be selected for want of merit position.
13. So far as Jagdish Prasad (who had applied as an OBC candidate) is concerned, he had secured 96 marks under the OBC category, though in the examination held on 16th January, 2011. In the OBC category, candidates who had secured 94 marks were included in the merit list against 12 OBC vacancies. Thus, Jagdish Prasad was included in the merit list for appointment to the post, in question. No illegality has resulted to the petitioner by assignment of the roll numbers in the examination conducted by the populace.
In these facts, the Tribunal has thus rightly concluded that no person lower in merit, other than the petitioner in the general category has been appointed to the post in question before us.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents had not notified in the advertisement that the examination would be conducted on two days. This has been necessitated purely on account of circumstances noted by the Tribunal as well as by us hereinabove W.P.(C)1133/2014 Page 5 of 6 and no prejudice thereby resulted to the petitioner nor any pointed out despite specific query has been put to the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard.
15. For all these reasons, we find no merit in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed.
GITA MITTAL, J DEEPA SHARMA, J MAY 28, 2014 rb W.P.(C)1133/2014 Page 6 of 6