Deepak Kumar And 62 Others vs Union Of India And 8 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 6888 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6334 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar And 62 Others
 
Respondent :- Union Of India And 8 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Ishir Sripat,Vijay Gautam(Senior Adv.)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Pranay Krishna
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. 

63 petitioners belonging to different categories have filed the present writ petition and challenged the select list dated 21.01.2020, published by Staff Selection Commission i.e. respondent No.4 (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), whereby 56088 Constables (G.D.) have been selected for appointment to Central Armed Forces. A prayer has been made to select and appoint the petitioners as they have qualified the Computer Based Examination (CBE), Physical Efficiency Test (PET)/Physical Standard Test (PST) and Detailed Medical Examination. The petitioners have also questioned the Corrigendum Notice dated 08.02.2019 and 07.02.2019, issued by respondent Commission, whereby process of normalization was introduced for evaluating the marks scored by the candidates. Petitioners, therefore, assert that the select list be drawn again strictly in accordance with Advertisement dated 21.07.2018 as well as Sub-clause (1) of Clause 9 of the revised scheme for recruitment of Constables issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. It is also urged that 4122 remaining vacancies be also filled with the appointment of petitioners as they are eligible. One of the prayers made in the petition is also to constitute a high level enquiry committee for scrutinizing the alleged irregularities committed in the recruitment itself. Petitioners further contend that the respondents be directed to declare actual raw marks and normalization marks of all selected and non-selected candidates for the posts in question.

I have heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Atipriya Gautam, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Pranay Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and perused the materials on record.

The recruitment herein has been initiated pursuant to an advertisement contained in Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition which came to be published in the Employment News on 21.07.2018. The applicants were allowed to register themselves between 21.07.2018 to 20.08.2018. Selection was to be made by the Commission to the post of Constable (G.D.) in different Central Police Agencies i.e. Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), National Investigation Agency (NIA) and Secretariat Security Force (SSF) and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles as per the scheme of recruitment formulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs pursuant to a memorandum of understanding signed between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Commission. All applications were to be accepted by online mode only. Computer Based Examination was to be conducted by the Commission in Hindi and English, which was to be followed with Physical Efficiency Test/Physical Standard Test, Detailed Medical Examination/Review Medical Examination and on the basis of eligibility documents to be furnished by the candidates subject to their verification. The minimum qualification for appointment is Matriculation or 10th pass from a recognized Board or University and the candidates were to be between 18 to 23 years of age as on 01.08.2018. Relaxation in age limit was available as per the Government Policy for SC/ST, O.B.C. and Ex-servicemen cadre and is specified in para 4-B of the advertisement.

Clause 8 of the advertisement specifies the centres of examination for different regions. Regional Director of the Commission at Allahabad was to conduct recruitment for central region which consists for Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. The scheme of examination is contained in Clause 9 of the advertisement. The Candidates had to appear in the Computer Based Examination which consisted of objective type paper containing 100 questions of 100 marks. The Questions were in different categories. Part A consisted of general intelligence and reasoning having 25 questions carrying 25 marks and the other part was of 25 questions of General Knowledge and General Awareness carrying equal marks. The rest 50 marks were divided between elementary Mathematics and English/ Hindi. The paper was of 90 minutes duration. Based on the performance in the Computer Based Examination the candidates were to be shortlisted for Physical Efficiency Test/Physical Standard Test to be conducted by the Commission. Those candidates who qualified Physical Efficiency Test/Physical Standard Test were to be medically examined by a team of Doctors. The parameters required to qualify medical examination were also specified in the advertisement. The grounds of rejection in medical examination have also been specified. Clause 11 of the advertisement specifies the mode of selection. Sub-clause (xi) of Clause 11 of mode of selection is relevant for our purposes and is reproduced hereinafter:-

"(ix) On the basis of aggregate marks scored by the candidates in Computer Based Examination, the final selection of candidates, along with force allocation, in each category namely, Un-Reserved, SC, ST, OBC and ex-servicemen will be made separately for male and female candidates in respect of each State/ UT and further earmarked category of Border Guarding and Militancy/ Naxal affected Districts wherever applicable. Selection of the candidates for NIA and SSf will be made on All India Basis. "

(emphasis supplied)

In order to ensure fairness in the examination a specific provision for penalty and debarment of candidates found indulging in malpractice was also incorporated. The examination in accordance with above terms of advertisement has been conducted by the respondents and a final select list has been published on 21.01.2021 which is assailed in this petition.

Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the recruitment in question had to be made in accordance with the advertisement as well as the policy laid down by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India in which no provision existed for normalization. In the advertisement and the policy/ memorandum of understanding the selection was to be based only upon the marks secured by the candidate subject to his/ her qualifying the other stages of recruitment. It is urged that contrary to the stipulation in the advertisement and policy, much after commencement of recruitment process, a corrigendum came to be issued by the Commission introducing normalisation in the recruitment process. This corrigendum is also challenged on the ground that it has been issued by the under Secretary without there being any decision, to this effect, of the Commission. The said corrigendum notice dated 08.02.2019 is extracted hereinafter:-

"Corrigendum

Constable (GD) in CAPFs, NIA, SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination - 2018

Candidates of Constable (GD) in CAPFs, NIA, SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination-2018 are hereby informed that the Computer Based Examination for the above mentioned recruitment will be conducted by the Commission on different dates between 11-02-2019 and 11-03-2019. The examination will be held in multiple shifts.

To address any variation in difficulty levels of question papers across different shifts, the scores of the candidates will be normalized by using the formula published by the Commission through Notice No: 1-1/2018-P&P-I dated 07-02-2019. Short-listing of candidates for PET/ PST and Medical Examination will be done on the basis of normalized marks scored by the candidates. Final merit as well as selection of the candidates will also be made on the basis of normalized marks."

The notice dated 07.02.2019, referred to in the above extracted corrigendum dated 08.02.2019 specified the method to be followed for normalization and is also extracted hereinafter:-

''IMPORTANT NOTICE

The Staff Selection Commission has already decided to normalize the scores of candidates for the examinations which are conducted in multi-shifts to take into account any variation in the difficulty levels of the question papers across different shifts. The normalization is done based on the fundamental assumption that "in all multi-shift examinations, the distribution of abilities of candidates is the same across all the shifts". This assumption is justified since the number of candidates appearing in multiple shifts in the examinations conducted by the Commission is large and the procedure for allocation of examination shift to candidates is random. The following formula will be used by the Commission to calculate final score of candidates in the multi-shift examinations:

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners with reference to the provisions of the advertisement and the above extracted notice/ corrigendum submits that the subsequent introduction of normalization is not in accordance with the advertisement and is otherwise not in accordance with the scheme published by the concerned Ministry. It is also alleged to be contrary to the memorandum of understanding executed between the Ministry and the Commission. The challenge to select list is also laid on the ground that the process of recruitment itself was neither transparent nor was it fair and contained numerous defects. Attention of the Court has been invited to paragraph 73 to 94 in order to submit that :

(i) Candidates who committed mistakes/discrepancies have been declared selected;

(ii) number of candidates had submitted incomplete/duplicate roll number but still they have been arbitrarily selected;

(iii) OMR sheets have been verified by the Commission without proper checking and verification and answer-sheets have been scanned without following the norms and criteria prescribed in the scheme of the recruitment;

(iv) that merit list has not been prepared as per all India State vacancy and  reservation for border districts/ Naxalite or Military affected districts have not been properly provided for;

(v) that at the time of preparing the final select list category of State/ Border/ Naxal/ Military militancy course have been changed to favour select persons;

(vi)  Codes of categories of castes of the candidates have been changed in an illegal manner;

(vii) number of candidates were permitted to make correction in the application forms even after last date of submission of application form, which is arbitrary;

(viii) change in correction or amendment has been allowed without there being any stipulation in the advertisement;

(ix) the select list is vitiated as the merit has been adjudged on the basis of normalization marks for which there existed no stipulation in the scheme introduced by the Ministry nor any enabling clause existed in that regard in the advertisement.

The select list has also been challenged on the ground that reservation has not been correctly applied inasmuch as candidates who have secured good marks and have qualified in unreserved category have still been adjusted against reserved categories. It is also alleged that the reservation has not been allowed to candidates from naxal/ militancy affected area appropriately and have not been placed in the select list. With reference to the pleadings made in the writ petition learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that the entire recruitment in question is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.

The petitioners have impleaded five candidates in representative capacity, who are arrayed as respondent no.5 to 9, with the allegation that they have secured lesser marks than the petitioners in the computer based examination but only on account of normalization they have been selected.

Per contra, Sri Pranay Krishan, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the recruitment has been undertaken strictly as per the scheme of the Central Government as well as the advertisement published for recruitment pursuant to it and there is no illegality in it. It is then urged that the examination was conducted for recruitment to 60210 posts across the country and a fair and transparent process has been followed. It is contended that Computer Based Examination was conducted in multiple shifts/sessions on different dates and at different centers and by necessity the Commission had to set different question papers for all centers and the possibility of some of such papers being tougher or easier than others could not be ruled out. It was in order to tackle this difficulty that the Commission resorted to normalization process which is a well accepted method to equalize marks of candidates who have attempted different question papers. It is submitted that the normalization process is implicit in the evaluation of marks where 31,41,284 candidates have applied against the advertisement. It is submitted that unless normalization was resorted to it would have been impossible for the Commission to conduct Computer Based Examination. It is also urged that the candidates were informed about resort to normalization process by the Commission prior to holding of Computer Based Examination and all candidates were subjected to uniform process and criteria and all the candidates participated without any protest. It is also stated that since all the petitioners have participated knowing fully well that their merit will be assessed by following the normalization process and no challenge was laid to it, at that stage, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise a challenge now only because they have not been finally selected. It is also urged that respondents nos. 5 to 9 are from a different region i.e. Karnataka and as the merit list was drawn region-wise, as such, the mere fact that respondent nos. 5 to 9 were selected despite scoring lesser marks, as is alleged without admitting, the same would not constitute any basis for a valid challenge to the select list itself. Learned counsel for the respondent also points out that the recruitment has otherwise concluded and more than 50,000 persons have actually been selected for appointment to different central police forces all over the country, and therefore, this petition be not entertained on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations.

Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in reply to the submissions advanced on behalf of the Commission states that the petitioners were unaware about the normalization having been introduced in the examination and it is only after the conduct of the examination that they came to know of it and consequentially challenge to the recruitment process is liable to be entertained.

From what has been urged on behalf of the parties this Court is called upon to examine; (i) whether the recruitment in question is vitiated on account of introduction of normalization process; (ii) whether the recruitment in question is vitiated on account of alleged anomalies pointed out by the petitioners in paragraph nos. 73 to 94 of the writ petition.

So far as the introduction of normalization process is concerned it is admitted to the parties that this process has been followed uniformly to evaluate the marks scored by the candidates to adjudge their merit. The process has been made applicable upon all candidates. No illegality or even irregularity is alleged or pointed out in implementing the normalisation process. The only question strenuously urged by Sri Vijay Gautam is that the normalisation was not envisioned in the advertisement for recruitment and it is otherwise not in accordance with the scheme for recruitment issued by the Ministry.

In order to appreciate the contentions urged it would be necessary to firstly understand the rationale and mechanics of normalization process in such large recruitment. The recruitment in the present case was to be made on the basis of merit of the candidates to be determined on the basis of marks scored by them in the Computer Based Examination. More than 31 lakh candidates had applied and it was not feasible to conduct such large scale recruitment at one center or in one go. It become inevitable for the examining body, therefore, to conduct examinations at different centers in multiple shifts/sessions over a period of one month. It consequently became a matter of necessity for the recruiting agency in such large examination to test the inter-se merit of candidates on the basis of distinct question papers in multiple shifts/sessions. Possibility of such different papers having distinct levels of difficulty is quite plausible. Unless appropriate adjustment is made by factoring differences in the levels of difficulty in the question papers the candidates would be denied a level playing field. Normalisation is well recognised and accepted process for adjusting differences in the difficulty levels by increasing and/or decreasing the raw marks secured by the candidates, in different shifts, to a certain number. This adjustment by following the process of normalisation is in fact implicit in evaluation where raw marks are awarded to large number of candidates on the basis of different set of questions posed.

The scope for evaluation of marks available to an examining body in large scale recruitment is no longer res-integra. The Apex Court in Sanjay Singh and another Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, 2007 (3) SCC 720 noticed the peculiarities that arise in large scale recruitment and emphasized the necessity to have uniformity and consistency in valuation of answer-scripts. In the context of a challenge to scaling the Court observed as under:-

20:- We cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that the words "marks awarded" or "marks obtained in the written papers" refers only to the actual marks awarded by the examiner. 'Valuation' is a process which does not end on marks being awarded by an Examiner. Award of marks by the Examiner is only one stage of the process of valuation. Moderation when employed by the examining authority, becomes part of the process of valuation and the marks awarded on moderation become the final marks of the candidate. In fact Rule 20(3) specifically refers to the 'marks finally awarded to each candidate in the written examination', thereby implying that the marks awarded by the examiner can be altered by moderation.

37.5:- The expression 'evaluation' would, therefore, take into its fold the minimum marks to be scored, the manner in which the evaluation is to be made and in the event of any requirement, to equalize the merits of the candidate in the written examination and follow any appropriate procedure in consonance with law, in order to ultimately arrive at a fair process by which the candidate can be called for interview, based on the evaluation of the marks in the written examination."

The issue of normalisation that arises in this case has also been examined by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Atul Kumar Dwivedi and others Vs State of U.P. and others, in Writ A No.23733 of 2018, decided on 11.9.2019 wherein the Court made following observations:-

105. Where the number of candidates taking the examinations are limited, it is to be assumed that there will be uniformity in the evaluation, but where large number of candidates take the examination, in different shifts and in different papers, it therefore, becomes necessary to evaluate the question papers by evolving a procedure to ensure uniformity in the level of question papers. The examining bodies have been adopting different methods, and most examining bodies/Selection Boards appear to take the view that moderation is the appropriate method to bring about uniformity in evaluation where several examiners manually evaluate the answer scripts of descriptive (conventional) type question papers in regard to same subjects. Scaling is resorted to where a common merit list has to be prepared in regard to candidates who have taken examination in different subjects, in pursuance of an option given to them. Scaling places the scores from different tests or test forms on to a common scale. Normalization is adopted to equalize objective question papers held in different shifts. There are, thus, different methods of statistical scoring. Standard Score method, Linear Standard Score method, Normalized Equi-Percentile method are some of the recognized methods for scaling.

106. The concept of normalisation of marks was introduced to equalise the level of difficulty of question paper of government exams, conducted in various shifts, in different papers. For example, a student who has appeared in first session or shift of the written exam might have scored low marks. However, the same student would have scored more or even higher marks if he had appeared in any of the latter shifts of the same exam. To eradicate this discrepancy the exam conducting Selection Boards have introduced the concept of normalisation of marks in exams to equalize the different levels of objective question papers held in multishifts in same subjects, based on common syllabus.

107. Normalisation of marks, therefore, means increasing and/or decreasing the marks obtained by students in different timing sessions (shifts) to a certain number. In statistics, the term normalization refers to the scaling down of the data set such that the normalized data falls in the range between 0 and 1. Such normalization techniques help in comparing corresponding normalized values from two or more different data sets in a way that it eliminates the effects of the variation in the scale of the data sets i.e. a data set with large values can be easily compared with a data set of smaller values. The normalized score/percentile is obtained by applying a formula.

108. Percentiles, however, should not be confused with percentage. The latter is used to express fractions of a whole, while percentiles are the values below which a certain percentage of the data in a data set is found. In practical terms, there is a significant difference between the two. The percentage score reflects how well the student did in the exam itself, the percentile score reflects how well he did in comparison to other students. Percentile rank would, therefore, mean percentage of scores that fall at or below a given score. Usually written to the nearest whole percent and are divided into 100 equally sized groups. The lowest score is at the first percentile and the highest score is at the 99th percentile.

109. It is relevant to place on record that none of the aggrieved candidates have made any allegation of mala fides or lack of bona fides, as against the Selection Board or its members or for that matter in the manner in which subsequent stages of selection were held by the Committee or with regard to the computation of normalized score arrived at by applying the Standardized Equi-Percentile method. In the absence of challenge to the normalization method and the scores obtained by the Selection Board in scaling the marks of the candidates scored in written examination, we take it that the normalisation formula and the normalized percentile score worked out by the Selection Board is just and fair.

The fairness of recruitment, therefore, requires that the levels of difficulty/variation in the question papers are adjusted on an uniform fair criteria so that marks correctly reflects the inter-se merits of candidates. The criteria for recruitment does not change merely because normalization process has been resorted to in the recruitment. It is just that the marks secured by different candidates are normalised on a prefix criteria so that every candidate is tested on an equal footing. Normalisation therefore is a part of evaluation and inbuilt in the ascertainment of marks scored by a candidate. No separate stipulation is thus required in the advertisement or scheme for recruitment.

To the contrary if such process is not adhered to by the Commission the very purpose of evaluating inter-se of candidates on the basis of marks secured by them would be lost. Resort to normalization, therefore, cannot be said to be a departure from the terms of recruitment or the scheme of recruitment framed by the Government.

The terms of the recruitment and the scheme framed by the Ministry of Home Affairs specifies that the merit will have to be ascertained on the basis of a Computer Based Test. This criteria for recruitment remains unaltered even after normalisation process is followed for evaluation of marks. The Commission otherwise has uniformally applied the normalization process to all candidates. There is no complaint in the writ petition to the effect that normalization criteria has been followed in an irrational manner or that there has been any error in following it.The petitioners have not substantiated any such grievance in the writ petition. The process was otherwise introduced prior to conduct of the computer based examination in multiple shifts. In such circumstances the respondents cannot be said to have committed any illegality in following the normalization process for the purposes of conduct of recruitment. Challenge laid to the recruitment on such ground, therefore, fails.

After the judgment was delivered in open Court and before the order could be signed learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted a compilation of case laws in support of petitioners' claim. I have examined the judgments cited before me but none of it has any applicability in the facts of the present case. The first judgment relied upon by the petitioners is in the case of K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2008) 3 SCC 512. This was a case relating to recruitment under the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1958 by applying scaling system. The criteria was predetermined in the ratio of 3:1 between written examination and interview which was altered to 4:1 after the recruitment process had commenced. It was in this context that the Court observed as under in para 28:-

"In Ramachandra Iyer (supra), this Court was considering the validity of a selection process under the ICAR Rules, 1977 which provided for minimum marks only in the written examination and did not envisage obtaining minimum marks in the interview. But the Recruitment Board (ASRB) prescribed a further qualification of obtaining minimum marks in the interview also. This Court observed that the power to prescribe minimum marks in the interview should be explicit and cannot be read by implication for the obvious reason that such deviation from the rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm. This Court held that as there was no power under the rules for the Selection Board to prescribed the additional qualification of securing minimum marks in the interview, the restriction was impermissible and had a direct impact on the merit list because the merit list was to be prepared according to the aggregate marks obtained by the candidates at written test and interview. This Court observed: (SCC p.181, para 44)

"44........Once an additional qualification of obtaining minimum marks at the viva voce test is adhered to, a candidate who may figure high up in the merit list was likely to be rejected on the ground that he has not obtaining minimum qualifying marks at viva voce test. To illustrate, a candidate who has obtained 400 marks at the written test and obtained 38 marks at the viva voce test, if considered on the aggregate of marks being 438 was likely to come within the zone of selection, but would be eliminated by the ASRB on the ground that he has not obtaining qualifying marks at viva voce test. This was impermissible and contrary to rules and the merit list prepared in contravention of rules cannot be sustained."

The second judgment cited is the case of Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11, which is to the similar effect and the judgment in K. Manjusree (supra) has been followed.

Petitioners have also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramjit Singh Kardam and others Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others, AIR 2020 SC 2060 in support of the proposition that where candidate appeared in the recruitment without knowing the criteria on which he is going to be subjected for selection then he cannot be shut out from laying challenge to it, later. Reliance is placed upon paras 38, 49, 51 and 71 of the judgment.

It is also urged that the Commission followed the rules, regulations and instructions issued by the Government of India and no separate rules are published for the purpose.

The judgment in K. Manjusree (supra) and Hemani Malhotra (supra) lay down the settled principles that rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun. This proposition however has no applicability in the facts of the present case inasmuch as adopting the normalisation process does not amount to change in the selection criteria which remains unaltered. It is only on the basis of the marks obtained in the Computer Based Examination that the merit of candidate for selection is determined. It has already been observed that normalisation is implicit in the process of evaluation and does not change the rules of the game which remains unaltered.

The last judgment of the Supreme Court, relied upon by the petitioners in the case of Ramjit Singh Kardam (supra) holds that where criteria of selection is altered without the knowledge of the candidate he can always challenge it later. Since there is no change in the criteria for selection in the facts of the present case as such the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in this case also has no applicability.

Petitioners have also questioned the normalisation process on the ground that decision to apply normalisation in the present recruitment is not taken by the Commission but is merely a decision of the under Secretary. This argument of the petitioners is noticed only to be rejected. The first notice dated 07.02.2019 (extracted above) recites that Staff Selection Commission has decided to normalise the scores of the candidates for the examination which are conducted in multiple shifts to take into account any variation in the difficulty leveled on the question papers across different shifts. The formula to be used by the Commission in multiple shifts examination is also specified. This decision is of the Commission as per the recital contained in the notice. The mere fact that it has been issued under the signatures of the Deputy Secretary does not mean that the decision is taken by the communicating authority and not by the Commission. All decisions of the Commission are communicated either through its Secretary or in its absence the Under Secretary. Learned counsel for the respondent Commission on the basis of instructions obtained states that the decision to normalise the scores of the candidates in multiple shifts examination has been taken by the Commission and that the decision exists on record. This Court has no reason to doubt such stand of the respondents particularly in view of the contents of the notice itself. Subsequent Corrigendum dated 08.02.2019 merely states that as Computer Based Examination for the recruitment in question has to be conducted in multiple shifts over a period of one month i.e. 11.02.2019 to 11.03.2019, therefore, in light of the decision already taken by the Commission on 07.02.2019 the raw marks scored by the candidates would be normalised in the manner specified in the notice dated 07.02.2019. The corrigendum dated 08.02.2019 merely enforces the decision taken by the Commission earlier on 07.02.2019 and cannot be challenged on the ground that decision is by the Under Secretary only. The argument is based on a misconceived premise and therefore, is rejected.

So far as the second ground urged by the petitioners to challenge the recruitment is concerned, this Court finds that though allegations are made regarding various anomalies but these allegations are wholly vague and general in nature and absolutely no material in support of such challenge has been placed on record before this Court. Mere allegation without there being any material to substantiate it would not be a ground for the writ Court to entertain challenge to such large scale recruitment. Any number of fanciful grounds of challenge can be included in the petition but unless it is supported by some prima facie material the Court would not be obliged to entertain it so as to cause a roving and fishing enquiry in large scale recruitment.

Unless the allegations are specific it would not be possible for anyone to reply to it. The petitioners must stand on their own legs before this Court and onus lies upon them to place some material which may persuade the Court to examine the allegation by calling for a reply in the matter. The only material which has been relied upon for the purpose of challenge to the recruitment is the assertion that private respondent nos. 5 to 9 have secured lesser marks than the petitioners. This cannot be a ground of challenge inasmuch as the recruitment as per the advertisement has to be made region-wise and the merit list is also to be drawn region wise. Respondent nos. 5 to 9 admittedly are from Karnataka region and their merit would have absolutely no relevance viz-a-viz the present petitioners, who are from a different region i.e. the central region. Apart from averment in that regard no other specific allegation has been made in this petition to challenge the recruitment.

Before concluding, this Court would like to observe that in large scale recruitments where more than lakhs of candidates have participated and the exercise has already concluded with selection of more than 50,000 candidates the Court would be reluctant to entertain routine challenges to the recruitment unless credible materials are placed before the Court for such challenge. It is otherwise settled that not every trivial departure from the scheme would justify interference with such large scale recruitment. Some play in the joints would have to be conceded to the Commission and unless the sanctity of the recruitment is prima facie shown to have been compromised the challenge need not be entertained. The services of selected constables would otherwise be urgently required in national interest. This Court, therefore, would not like to entertain the challenge merely for the asking and keep the petition pending. Challenge for the sake of challenge is not to be entertained so as to keep the Sword of Damocles hanging upon thousands of selected candidates.

In light of the above deliberations and discussions this Court finds no error in the recruitment in question on the basis of grounds urged in this petition. Writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Costs made easy.

Order Date :- 1.7.2021

Abhishek Singh