High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed seeking issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to declare the petitioner to be successful for the post of Human Resource Officer (Grade-A) for which the respondent had held Written Test, GD/GT and Personal Interview pursuant to the advertisement.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is a B.A and M.B.A, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The respondent brought out an advertisement for different posts including the post of Human Resource Officer (Grade-A). There were altogether 50 posts advertised for HR Officer in which 7 posts were reserved for SC candidates, 3 posts for Scheduled Tribes candidates, and 13 posts for Other Backward Classes candidates. The minimum eligibility criteria were 2 years full-time regular M.B.A. / for the post of HR Officer. According to the said advertisement, age relaxation of 5 years for SC / ST candidates was given. The petitioner being an SC candidate claimed the aforesaid age relaxation of 5 years. The petitioner applied for the post of HR Officer by submitting an online application form. The petitioner qualified for the written test and he was called for Personal Interview and Group Discussion.
The final result of the said post was declared, wherein in General category 27 candidates were declared successful while in SC, ST, and OBC category 7, 3, and 13 candidates were declared successful respectively. However, the petitioner was not declared successful. The petitioner sought information as to how many selected candidates (SC category) were selected as Unreserved category. The petitioner also requested the respondent to provide him with his OMR sheet along with the model question paper and its answer key. The petitioner was not provided model question paper booklet Series ‘A’ bearing No.400449 and its answer key. The respondent provided model question paper booklet Series ‘B’, whereas the OMR sheet was provided of model question paper booklet Series ‘A’.
Petitioner’s Contention:
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is quite confident that he must have obtained more marks than what he has got and once his particular model question paper booklet is made available to him, he can demonstrate his assertion. He also contended that a large-scale malpractice has been committed by the respondent in the whole recruitment process. He stated that the petitioner's candidature ought to have been considered by the respondent in the UR category as he had obtained more marks than the last two selected candidates of the UR category. He also stated that the petitioner is quite confident that his answer sheet has not been properly evaluated or something has been done with his model question paper and the answer sheet.
He contended that not including the name / roll number of the petitioner on the list of successful candidates amounted to violation of Articles 14 and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. He added that a reserved category candidate, in addition to the reserve seats can always compete for unreserved seats. He stated that when certain seats are reserved, it would not result in making unreserved seats compartmentalized for the General category i.e., unreserved candidates as there is no reservation for General category candidates.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has failed to disclose the correct facts regarding the selection of one candidate belonging to the SC category who was selected on merits in the UR category. He contended that unlike the petitioner, one more candidate had not availed of any relaxation available to the reserved category candidates, whereas the petitioner has availed the benefit of age relaxation available to SC candidates, but for which the petitioner would not have been eligible.
He contended that the petitioner could not, therefore, be considered for appointment under the General category in terms of the Office Memorandum issued by Ministry of Personnel, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India which states that it is clarified that only such SC/ST/OBC candidates who are selected on the same standard as applied to general candidates shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies. He submitted that it is the settled legal position that a candidate who applies under a reserved category by availing age relaxation available to that category could not claim an appointment in the General category.
HC’s Observations:
The question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the model question paper booklet Series ‘A’ bearing No.400449 and its answer key and if he has secured 55.60 marks or more, is he liable to be appointed to the post of HR Officer.
HC observed that the eligibility of the petitioner to the said post is not in dispute. The ground on which the respondent has denied the appointment to the petitioner is that he had secured 55.55 marks which is less than the last selected under the SC category, who had secured 55.60 marks. Court observed that based on the said model question paper, though he was given the OMR sheet, it is not possible to ascertain the right answers and the marks secured by him.
Court stated that “It is a conceded case of the petitioner that he was given a relaxation of five years in age for applying for the post. Such an SC category candidate seeking the benefit of relaxation cannot claim a right to be appointed under the General category even if he secures more marks. Also, when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting an SC / ST / OBC candidates, for example in the age limit, experience qualification, permitted number of chances in written examination, extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided for general category candidates etc., the SC /ST / OBC candidates are to be counted against reserved vacancies. Such candidates would be deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies.”
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “the respondent have not placed on record the model question paper booklet Series ‘A’ and its answer key though the OMR sheet of the petitioner has been filed on record. It is not possible to ascertain whether the OMR sheet of the petitioner tallies with the answer key of Series ‘A’. If that be so, the petition is disposed of with the directions that the respondent to call for the model question paper Series ‘A’ along with the answer key and tally the answers of the petitioner in the OMR sheet filed on record before this Court. On such comparison, if there is an increase in the marks of the petitioner, further action shall be taken by the respondent in accordance with the law. If there is no change in the marks secured by the petitioner then the matter shall be treated as closed.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao
Case Title: Kamlendra Kumar Verma v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Case Details: W.P.(C) 749/2019, CM No. 3273/2019
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
