Ms. Vinita vs University Of Delhi & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2509 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of decision: 10th May, 2011.

+                  W.P.(C) 3062/2011 & CM No.6484/2011 (for stay)

%        MS. VINITA                                           ..... Petitioner
                              Through:    Mr. G.K. Kaushik, Adv.

                                   Versus

         UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR.              ..... Respondents
                      Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Advocate for
                               R-1 DU.
                               Mr. Jatan Singh & Mr. Ashish Kumar
                               Srivastava, Advocates for R-2 UOI.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                    No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?             No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported            No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner working as Section Officer in the Department of

Sociology of the University of Delhi had applied through the route of

Direct Recruitment for the post of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Controller

of Examinations/Administrative Officer for which applications were

invited by the respondent University and appeared in the examination held

on 30th October, 2010 but was not found successful. This writ petition has

been filed seeking relief of (i) re-evaluation of the answer sheets from an

independent body/authority (ii) setting aside the change of selection

criteria adopted qua candidates seeking appointment through the route of

Departmental Promotion or for direction for the same criteria to be applied

for Direct Recruitment also, and (iii) fixing the maximum marks for

interview not exceeding 20% of the total marks instead of 35% for direct

recruitment. The petitioner also seeks the relief of restraining the

declaration of the further result of interview and of setting aside of the

entire selection process.

2. As far as the relief of re-evaluation of answer sheet is concerned, the

petitioner cites past instances of alleged discrimination against her and

with respect to which the writ petitions earlier filed by the petitioner are

stated to be still pending.

3. The Division Bench of this Court recently in judgment dated 25th

August, 2010 in LPA No.595/2010 titled Rohit Kumar Vs. Delhi

Subordinate Services Selection Board has reiterated that no re-evaluation

can be ordered, in the absence of any rule therefor. No rule has been

shown in the present case. The petitioner even otherwise has not been able

to establish any possibility of the examiner of the answer books written by

the petitioner being prejudicial to her or being able to know the identity of

the petitioner. On enquiry, it is informed that about 300 candidates had

appeared in the examination.

4. The second ground urged by the counsel for the petitioner is that

besides inviting applications for appointments to the said posts through

Direct Recruitment, applications for appointments through departmental

promotion were also invited and the written test held was common for both

routes. The counsel however fairly admits that the petitioner was not

eligible for appointment through the process of departmental promotion

and accordingly had not applied for the same. The allegation is that the

selection criteria for promotion through the route of departmental

promotion, has been changed after the selection process had begun.

5. The petitioner having not applied for promotion through the

departmental process has no locus to challenge the change even if any in

selection process therein. Though, the counsel for the petitioner had

sought to urge that ultimately the petitioner would be affected but admits

that the quota of the posts for the departmental promotion is distinct and

separate from the quota for direct recruitment. The petitioner is thus not

found to have any locus to challenge the change even if any in the

selection process through departmental promotion for which the petitioner

had not participated.

6. As far as the last ground urged by the petitioner of the respondent

University allocating 35% marks for interview is concerned, the Supreme

Court in Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan (1981) 4 SCC 159 held that the

ratio of decisions qua percentage of marks for interview in educational

matters cannot be applied in case of services to which recruitment has

necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality and that in

services, interview test may be the only way to differentiate between all

those meeting the basic qualification. Be that as it may, the counsel for the

respondent University appearing on advance notice states that in future,

correction if any required in this regard shall be made. However, as far as

the petitioner is concerned, she is not found to have any case on the said

ground also for the reason of the petitioner having participated in the

selection process knowing fully well of the marks in the interview being

35%. The Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, to which reference is

made in Vipul Bhole Vs. School of Planning & Architecture 173 (2010)

DLT 349, has held that a candidate after having participated in the

selection process being fully aware of the same, upon being unsuccessful,

is not entitled to challenge the same. Reference may also be made to

Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576, where also

it was held that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing

fully well that 19% marks had been earmarked for viva voce the petitioner

therein could not be held entitled to challenge the criteria or process of

selection.

7. No ground is made out; the writ petition is dismissed. No order as

to costs.

8. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner states that certain queries

through the medium of 'Right to Information Act' have been made and

seeks opportunity to file a fresh petition if any fresh cause of action is

discovered.

9. Liberty granted if discover fresh ground.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY 10, 2011 bs