Delhi High Court
Surender Pal vs High Court Of Delhi Through The ... on 11 November, 2014
26.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 11.11.2014
% W.P.(C) 7718/2014 and CM APPL.Nos. 18152-18153/2014
SURENDER PAL
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit George & Ms. Rajasree
Ajay, Advocates.
versus
HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Anu Bagai, Advocate for
respondent No.1/DHC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioner seeks a direction for quashing the merit list and the
appointments to the post of Private Secretary, made in 2006.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner competed for the post of Private
Secretary pursuant to an advertisement issued on 24.02.2006. The
advertisement, inter alia, stated as follows:
W.P.(C.) No.7718/2014 Page 1 of 5
"Mode of Selection
Selection shall be made on the basis of written examination
comprising one paper in English language (Essay, Grammar
and Translation) to be held on Sunday, 30th April 2006.
Successful candidates in English language paper shall be
called for a Shorthand dictation to be transcribed on computer.
The shortlisted candidates would also undergo a viva-voce
test."
3. Relying upon the reply to the application under the Right to
Information Act (RTI) queries, the petitioner submits that the recruitment
process undertaken to finalise the select list was flawed and opaque. It is
pointed out that a textual reading of rule regarding the mode of appointment
clearly shows that selection is on merit on the basis of written examination
comprising of one paper in English language. It is submitted that the
Shorthand dictation test is only a qualifying process, and that there is no
indication regarding the weightage to be provided to the interview. Thus,
the Committee could not have assigned marks, and picked up people who
were lower down in the list prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in
the written examination.
4. Learned counsel argues that the petitioner was placed at Serial. No.4
in the list on the basis of written test, and had scored 128 marks as against
Mr. Gagan Nagpal, who scored 157 marks and was the topper. The
petitioner had committed ten mistakes in the Shorthand test, and Mr. Nagpal
had committed four mistakes. Pointing out that one Mr. Satya Sheel
Bhatnagar was placed at Serial No.45 on the list with 104 marks in the
written test and 14 mistakes in the Shorthand test, he was ultimately placed
at Serial No.7 by the Selection Committee. It was urged that the minutes of
W.P.(C.) No.7718/2014 Page 2 of 5
the meeting which finalized the select list nowhere indicated how the
petitioner was ranked lower at Serial No.20, whereas Mr. Bhatnagar was
placed at Serial No.7.
5. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court
reported as Tukaram Kana Joshi & Others Vs. Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation & Others, (2013) 1 SCC 353, to say that delay
cannot defeat a right and as long as there is a cause for injustice, such
injustice would override any other consideration. Learned counsel
highlighted that the consideration of justice would be paramount and delay
cannot defeat the petitioner's right to the relief sought.
6. The respondent is present on advance notice. It relies upon Rule 9 of
the records managements of Swamy's Complete Manual on Establishment
& Administration. Learned counsel highlighted that the concerned records
pertaining to the final selection process, i.e. applications and answer sheets
and other related papers in respect of various competitive examinations,
including the examination for Private Secretary held in 2005-06 have been
weeded out/ destroyed. Copy of the relevant note sheet, approved by the
Chief Justice sometime in 2008 permitting destruction of the records, has
been produced.
7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions. As to the
interpretation of the mode of selection, it is clear that the petitioner is not
correct in contending that the merit list is to be drawn entirely and only on
the basis of written examination. Whilst results in the written test would be
an important component, equally the result of Shorthand dictation and viva-
W.P.(C.) No.7718/2014 Page 3 of 5
voce test was also taken into consideration. The entire mode of selection
has to be read as comprising a single and complete process and cannot be
read in a disjointed manner. Reply to the RTI queries provided to the
petitioner, no doubt, indicates that he was at Serial No.4 of the list prepared
on the basis of the marks obtained in the written test. The sixth column -
which reflects the mistakes committed by the candidate in the Shorthand
test, apparently was not taken into consideration while compiling that list.
However, these materials were taken into consideration by the Selection
Committee, which interviewed, or conducted the viva-voce of all the said
candidates. The Selection Committee comprised of three Judges of this
Court. The absence of any material - by reason of weeding of the records -
cannot, in the opinion of this Court, lead to any presumption that the
Selection Committee did not weigh the relative merit of the candidates and
give weightage to the marks obtained by them in the interview. Nor can
there be any assumption, as suggested, that the maximum marks being
unknown, some candidates were favoured, or preferred over the others.
8. The petitioner's argument that delay and laches should not influence
the Court in its decision, may be correct in an abstract sense but, in the
circumstances of the case, certainly his decision - and a conscious one, not
to approach the Court for over eight long years, has led to a situation where
the records are not available. In the absence of the relevant material as to
the maximum marks assigned for viva-voce test and interview, and the
relative marks obtained by each candidate, or for that matter, maximum
marks assigned for the written test, no conclusions can be drawn as to the
unfairness, or arbitrariness of the selection process. In other words, whilst
W.P.(C.) No.7718/2014 Page 4 of 5
the contention with respect to the delay not being the over arching principle
applicable to the Court exercising discretion under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is correct, in the circumstances of the present case, the
petitioner's inaction in seeking his remedies, in effect, defeats the Court's
ability to make any effective enquiry.
9. In these circumstances, this Court declines to entertain the present
petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
NOVEMBER 11, 2014
B.S. Rohella
