Delhi High Court
Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors vs Gajraj Singh on 6 December, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 06.12.2012
+ W.P.(C) 45/2010
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ... Petitioner
versus
GAJRAJ SINGH ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms Latika Chaudhary for Mrs Avnish Ahlawat
For the Respondent : Mr Anil Singal
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.10.2009
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi in OA 2189/2008, whereby the respondent's said Original
Application has been allowed.
2. The respondent had contended before the Tribunal that the written
test, which was conducted for the post of Head Constable, comprised of
three questions which ought not to have been considered for the purpose
of marking. It was contended that question No. 53 was marked
incorrectly inasmuch as the Answer Key was wrong. In fact, it was
contended that the question itself was not correct. Insofar as question
Nos. 68 and 79 are concerned, the contention was that they were outside
the syllabus.
3. The petitioner had obtained 124 marks in the said written test. It is
also an admitted position that the last person, who was appointed to the
post of Head Constable, had obtained 125 marks in the said written test.
The Tribunal agreed with the contention of the respondent that question
No. 53 was incorrect and consequently, awarded one mark to the
respondent, thereby taking his total marks to 125.
4. The Tribunal has also directed that because of the fact that the
respondent would get 125 marks in the manner indicated by the Tribunal,
he would be entitled to be selected for the post of Head Constable.
However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
Tribunal did not take note of the fact that there were 191 candidates who
had obtained 124 marks and they may also have had to be given one mark
if the logic of the Tribunal was to be accepted. In other words, there
could be an additional 191 candidates who could have obtained 1 mark.
Apart from this, the learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out
that even amongst the persons who had obtained 125 marks, who were
105 in number in General Category, only 34 were enlisted because they
were the senior most and those were the number of vacancies available.
Therefore, merely because the petitioner would get 125 marks in the
manner suggested by the Tribunal, did not mean that the petitioner would
automatically be selected for the post of Head Constable.
5. She also submitted that the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that just
by adding one more mark the respondent would not be entitled to the post
of Head Constable automatically. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the process of selection and promotion to the rank of Head
Constable is complete only after the person, who is brought in list A,
successfully completes the lower school course and then his name is
brought in list B and thereafter promotion is made as per vacancies. This
aspect of the matter has also been lost sight of by the Tribunal inasmuch
as the Tribunal directed that the petitioner be promoted to the post of
Head Constable merely because he would get 125 marks in the manner
suggested by the Tribunal.
6. We are not in agreement with the manner in which the Tribunal has
dealt with this matter. The Tribunal ought not to have granted 1 mark to
the respondent ignoring the other 191 candidates who had obtained 124
marks. This is apart from the fact that the Tribunal is not an expert body
and was not in a position to determine as to whether question No. 53 was
correct or incorrect and as to whether question Nos.68 and 79 were
outside the syllabus or not. That should have been referred to an expert
body, if at all.
7. As such, The Tribunal's order cannot stand. The petitioner has
taken the plea that only 34 of the senior most constables, out of the 105
who had obtained 125 marks in the General Category, had been promoted
to the post of Head Constable. But, as this plea had not been taken before
the Tribunal, it would only be proper if the Tribunal examines this aspect
of the matter also. Because if it were so, then even the grant of an
additional 1 mark would not be of any use to the respondent as he was,
according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, not amongst the 34
senior-most constables.
8. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the
Tribunal for consideration afresh enabling the petitioner to place an
additional affidavit with regard to the status of the 105 candidates in the
General Category who had also obtained 125 marks in the test conducted
in 2007. The matter shall be placed before the Tribunal, in the first
instance, on 07.01.2013.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
DECEMBER 06, 2012
SR
