Delhi High Court
Abhay Singh vs State Of National Capital Of Delhi ... on 17 January, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on 17.01.2012
+ W.P (C) No. 8520/2011
ABHAY SINGH ... Petitioner
versus
STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL
OF DELHI & ORS ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Thejauptutuo Khezhie
For the Respondent : Ms Rekha Palli, Ms Punam Singh, Ms Amrita
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL)
1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2011 passed in OA No.
2655/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The basic grievance of the
petitioner is that the selection to the post of staff nurse ought to have been
conducted on the basis of the combined marks derived from the written test and
the interview on a 60:40 basis of weightage whereas the appointment was made
on the basis of the interview marks alone.
2. The respondent No.2 took out an advertisement in the employment
newspaper on 28.03.2009 and on other dates up to 03.04.2009 whereby various
vacancies of paramedical staff including the post of staff nurse were notified.
The applicant being eligible for the post of staff nurse submitted his application
under the OBC category. The applicant sat for the written test and obtained
78% marks and having qualified in the same was called for interview which
was held on 03.12.2009. However, in the interview the petitioner obtained
57% marks. He was not selected because others had obtained higher marks
than him in the interview.
3. As pointed out above, the grievance of the petitioner is that no
weightage has been given to the marks obtained by him in the written test and
100% weightage has been given to the marks obtained by candidates in the
interview. According to him the weightage should have been distributed on a
60:40 basis between the written test and the interview. It is further the case of
the petitioner that in case the weightage was so distributed, he would have
qualified for selection to the post of the staff nurse in view of the fact he had
obtained 78% marks in the written test and 57% marks in the interview.
4. The Tribunal after considering the case put forth by the petitioner and
the submissions made on behalf of the respondent came to the conclusion that
on the basis of the material placed on record, the appointment itself was to be
made according to the marks obtained in the interview and that the written
examination was held only for the purposes of screening. The Tribunal noted
that since the applicant had obtained 78% marks in the written examination he
had clearly qualified in the screening test and was, therefore, called for the
interview. However, in the interview he had obtained 57% marks and since
there were others who had obtained much higher marks in the interview he was
not selected. It is, therefore, clear in the impugned order itself that the criteria
for selection was not as alleged by the petitioner. The written examination was
merely a screening test and the selection proper was to be made on the basis of
the marks obtained in the interview.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, on the basis of certain
information received on an R.T.I. application, that the Directorate (Medical)
Delhi, Tilak Vihar, had in the process of selection of candidate given the
weightage 60% to the written test and 40% to the interview and therefore this
was the policy which ought to have been followed in the present case also.
However, the respondent No.2 by its letter dated 12.11.2010, pursuant to the
direction given by the Central Information Commission, informed the
petitioner that there were no specific rules regarding selection by interview or
written test and that the Headquarters Office (i.e, the respondent No.2) had
completed the recruitment process on the basis of merit of marks obtained by
the candidate in the interview. It was clarified by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent that the process adopted by the Directorate
(Medical) Delhi, Tilak Vihar was different. In the present case the very criteria
which had been advertised had been followed. It was clear that there would be
a written test which would be held for screening candidates and that it would be
followed by an interview on the basis of which, alone, the candidates would be
selected on merit.
6. In view of the foregoing, we are in agreement with the decision arrived
at by the Tribunal and we do not find any illegality committed either by the
Tribunal or by the respondent No.2 in the selection process.
7. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K. JAIN, J
JANUARY 17, 2012
kb
