Delhi High Court
The Government Of National ... vs Shri Jai Singh And Another on 3 October, 2008
Author: Madan B. Lokur
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1363 of 1998
Judgment reserved on: September 17, 2008
% Judgment delivered on: October 03, 2008
1. The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
(through its Chief Secretary)
5 Sham Nath Marg
Delhi.
2. The Director of Education
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
Old Secretariat
Delhi. ...Petitioners
Through Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv.
Versus
1. Shri Jai Singh
Son of Shri Chander Bhan
Presently appointed as
Assistant Teacher
M.C.D. Primary School, Narela
Delhi -110 040.
2. The Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
Faridkot House
Copernicus Marg
New Delhi - 110 001. ...Respondents
Through Mr. Randhir Jain, Adv. for R-1.
WP(C) No. 1363/1998 Page 1 of 6
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
Pursuant to an advertisement for recruitment to the post of
Post Graduate Teacher in Political Science, the Respondent put in his
application along with all necessary documents.
2. For the purpose of selection, a marking scheme was evolved
by the Petitioners and as per this scheme, the Respondent secured 51
marks which met the required cut off. Accordingly, the Respondent was
placed in the select list for the purposes of issuance of an appointment
letter.
3. According to the Respondent, the appointment letter never
came and on enquiries he was informed that his name was no longer in
the select list since certain other applicants, who had got better marks,
were entitled to be selected.
4. Under these circumstances, the Respondent filed an Original
Application bearing No.1810/1995 before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi seeking issuance of an
appointment letter for the post of Post Graduate Teacher Political
Science.
5. In response, the Petitioners stated that there was some
dispute about a certificate issued to the Respondent equivalent to a
Class 12 certificate. For this reason, the final appointment letter in the
case of the Respondent was held back until verification. Subsequently,
this controversy was resolved in favour of the Respondent.
6. The Petitioners also stated that they had received
representations from other candidates to the effect that even though they
deserved to be appointed they had not been issued appointment letters.
An inquiry was made by the Petitioners into the circumstances leading
upto the complaints and it was found that the cases of some candidates
were erroneously not considered apparently because their applications
were misplaced. After taking the misplaced applications into
consideration it was found that the cut off would now be 52 marks and
since the Respondent fell below the cut off, no appointment letter was
issued to him.
7. The Tribunal noted that it was rather odd that some
applications were misplaced and that they pertained to the very same
subject of Political Science, with which we are presently concerned.
However, since the Director of Education had filed his personal
affidavit indicating the relevant facts, the Tribunal accepted the affidavit
and proceeded on the basis that only a human error was responsible for
the controversy and that it was not as if some persons were sought to be
appointed through a back door method.
8. The Tribunal was of the view that if the misplaced
applications were not discovered, the Respondent would have been
appointed and since there was a "change in policy", due to subsequent
events, the Respondent cannot be denied appointment.
9. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the Respondent be
placed on the panel and the next vacancy be offered to him. It is against
this order of the Tribunal that the Petitioners are now before us.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, we must
proceed on the basis that it was due to a bona fide human error that
some applications were misplaced, as has been found by the Tribunal.
Once we are required to proceed on this basis, we must also assume, in
the absence of any contrary finding having been given by the Tribunal,
that the misplaced applications were required to be taken into
consideration. If the misplaced applications are taken into
consideration, the cut off marks as per the scheme evolved by the
Petitioners stood raised to 52 marks and unfortunately the Respondent
did not reach the cut off for appointment. Therefore, the Respondent
could not be given the appointment letter for the post of Post Graduate
Teacher in Political Science.
11. In our opinion, the Tribunal was incorrect in assuming that
there was a "change in policy". The policy remained the same inasmuch
as the marking scheme remained the same but it is only that the
applications of some more persons were taken into consideration since
their applications were misplaced. Since no mala fides have been
alleged in this regard, the Petitioners were obliged to take those
applications into consideration. Having done so, the cut off marks rose
from 51 to 52. This was purely fortuitous and not due to any "change in
policy" which continued to remain the same.
12. That being the position, we are of the opinion that the
Tribunal erred in giving the direction that it did, namely, that the
Respondent should be offered the next vacancy, even though he is
below the cut-off mark.
13. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and
the petition is allowed.
14. No costs.
MADAN B. LOKUR, J
OCTOBER 03, 2008 SURESH KAIT, J
vk
Certified that the corrected
copy of the judgment has
been transmitted in the main
Server.
