Union Of India & Others vs Ram Singh And Another
2009 Latest Caselaw 578 Del

                                  Unreportable

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P.(C) No. 4948/1997

%
                                          Decided on : 17.02.2009

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
                                                    . . . Petitioners

                      through :   Ms Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Latika
                                  Chaudhary, Advocates

               VERSUS

RAM SINGH & ANOTHER
                                             . . . Respondents

               through            None.


CORAM :-
   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

       1.      Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
               to see the Judgment?
       2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?
       3.      Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?

A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)

Nobody is appearing on behalf of the Respondent for the last

number of hearings. Last appearance was put in for the counsel for the

Respondent in the year 1999. Since this is a matter of 1997 and

respondent is not appearing, we have heard the counsel for the

Petitioner.

2. The respondent had filed OA before the Tribunal in the year 1992

against his non-selection to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT). An

examination for appointment to the said post was conducted in May

1991 in which respondent had appeared. As he was not selected, he

challenged the selection by filing the aforesaid OA. The Tribunal in the

impugned order noted that in the advertisement it was mentioned that

there would be a written examination for two and a half hours duration

consisting of General Knowledge, Teaching Aptitude and Subject

Competence. It was also stipulated in the advertisement that the

aforesaid three components of examination will carry 10, 25 and 50

marks respectively. The Petitioner thereafter prepared a merit list and

apart from the marks obtained by the candidates in the aforesaid written

examination, awarded marks for experience as well. It was explained by

the petitioner before the Tribunal. Since the aforesaid written

examination was for a total 85 marks, 15 marks were reserved for

interview/experience and under that head marks were awarded. The

Tribunal has held that when it was not stipulated in the advertisement

that there would be separate marks for teaching experience, there could

not have been any mark under the said head. As pointed out above,

selection process for the aforesaid post was undertaken in the year 1991.

The persons who got selected, joined the post. If the fresh exercise is to

be undertaken at this stage, it would not confined only to the

Respondents herein but all the candidates.

3. Having regard to these considerations and the fact that respondent

is not appearing in the matter, we deem it fit not to unsettle the aforesaid

exercise of appointments to the various posts including that of PGT at

this distance of time. For this reason alone and without going into the

validity of the impugned order, we set aside the said judgment.

4. The writ petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms.

(A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE FEBRUARY 17, 2009 rb