Mr.Bhupinder Singh Negi And Ors. vs Airport Authorityof India And ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 5180 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P.(C) No.7920/2012

%                                                   12th November, 2013

MR.BHUPINDER SINGH NEGI AND ORS.                          ..... Petitioners
                 Through: Mr. Rakesh                      Kumar Dudeja,
                          Advocate.

                           Versus

AIRPORT AUTHORITYOF INDIA AND ANR.          ...Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocate for
                           respondent No.1.
                           Mr. Syed Imtiyaz Ali, Advocate for
                           applicants.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.13959/2013 (under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC)

               A representation dated 9.7.2013 has been filed by one of the

applicants. If that applicant would be successful in the representation

dated 9.7.2013, then, at that stage cause of action will accrue because on

the representation being favourably considered, rights of the applicants will

be affected.



W.P.(C) No.7920/2012                                         Page 1 of 4
               The application is therefore dismissed with liberty to one of

the applicants who has filed the representation dated 9.7.2013 to approach

this Court if the department favourably considers the representation dated

9.7.2013.

+ W.P.(C) No.7920/2012

1.            Respondent no.2 has not filed the counter-affidavit in spite of

last opportunity. Even costs have not been paid. Right to file the counter-

affidavit by respondent no.2 shall stand closed.

2.            Petitioners were aspirants to the post of Junior Executive (PA)

with the respondent no.1/Airport Authority of India. Petitioners by this

writ petition claim that shorthand test conducted by the respondent no.2 on

behalf of respondent no.1 was based on arbitrary evaluation and no

guidelines and therefore the same should be declared as illegal and bad.

Petitioners pray for re-evaluation on the basis of earlier criteria adopted for

candidates.

3.            On behalf of the petitioners, their counsel has drawn the

attention of this Court to a letter dated 17.7.2012 issued by the respondent

no.1 to the respondent no.2 wherein query was raised as to the aspect that

one mark was deducted for each mistake in the shorthand test conducted on

5.6.2011 whereas in the subsequent test which was conducted on

W.P.(C) No.7920/2012                                          Page 2 of 4
 18.12.2011 two marks were deducted for each mistake in the shorthand

test. It is argued that this change of criteria is illegal. However, counsel

for the petitioners himself has drawn the attention of this Court to the letter

dated 1.9.2012 sent by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.1 and

which specifies that two marks were deducted for each mistake because the

test held on 18.12.2011 was made extremely simple at the last minute and

therefore question paper was set much below the standard followed in

previous examination. It is further clarified in this letter that marking is

accordingly done by the same persons who have set the examination

papers.

4.           In the present case, the only right which can accrue to the

petitioner would be on the basis of         the respondents' actions being

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In my opinion, there is

no arbitrariness and consequent illegality in the action of the respondents

in the present case for the same to violate Article 14 once it is seen that

with respect to all candidates a uniform standard of marking is applied and

given. The present is not a case where rules of the game are changed

midway because issue is of marking/evaluation and not of change of any

rules of selection which remains the same of clearing of the typing test and

clearing of the shorthand and typing test thereafter.

W.P.(C) No.7920/2012                                          Page 3 of 4
 5.           In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition for

the petitioners to be granted the reliefs, and who have been unsuccessful in

the shorthand and typing tests as they have committed more mistakes than

were permissible, and in fact there are other candidates who having

committed less mistakes as per the uniform test applied were therefore

selected.

6.           The writ petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to

bear their own costs.




NOVEMBER 12, 2013                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne