Pooja Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5869 Del

$~26
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          Date of hearing and Order: November 17, 2014

+      W.P.(C) 7819/2014
       POOJA SHARMA                                       ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr. O.P. Agarwal, Mr. Jeet Ram,
                                       Advocates
                          versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                           ..... Respondents
                     Through:          Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj,
                                       CGSC, Mr. T.P.Singh, Advocates
                                       for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

                                ORDER

% KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)

By this petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner seeks a writ

of mandamus or certiorari for quashing the letter dated 20.8.2014; for

acceptance of the mark sheet and provisional certificate dated 12.8.2012

and 17.8.2012 respectively, for acceptance of the mark sheet dated 6th

August, 2013 issued in continuation of the previous mark sheet dated

12.8.2012; and a direction to the respondents for the issuance of an

appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector

for which she had qualified all the necessary tests and also allow ante

date seniority as well as other consequential benefits.

The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the respondent - Staff

Selection Commission had rejected her candidature on the ground that the

final result of the petitioner in B.Com (Hons.) examination was declared

on 6th August, 2013 and therefore, she did not fulfil the eligibility

qualification as on 1st January 2013. The learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner had qualified the degree course, she

was issued a mark sheet bearing No.8460 dated 12th August , 2012 and a

provisional certificate bearing No.09/581 by the University of Delhi

(hereinafter "University") on 17th August, 2012. He further submits that

the petitioner had applied to the University, seeking improvement of

marks in one of the optional papers on the basis of the policy of the

University, which when invoked was bound to only increase the marks,

and there was no possibility of the already secured marks being

decreased. Acceding to the said request, the University had increased the

marks in the said optional paper and consequently, issued a fresh

statement of marks dated 6th August, 2013. He also submits that the

petitioner had not appeared in any further or supplementary examination,

but merely an application was made for improvement of her marks in one

of the optional papers, but only a mathematical enhancement of the marks

was sought in terms of the policy/guidelines. However the respondent -

Staff Selection Commission misconstrued as if the petitioner had

qualified the graduation exams later in the month of March 2013, whereas

in reality the petitioner already possessed a provisional certificate of the

requisite educational qualification on 17th August, 2013.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that for the

recruitment the petitioner had qualified all the requisite tests which

included the written examination, the PET, eligibility test and the medical

examination and therefore, she was fully entitled to be appointed to the

post of Assistant Sub Inspector in CISF, examination for which was held

on 6.10.2013. He further submits that appointment to the petitioner had

been denied on a wrong premise considering the later issuance of mark

sheet by the University as if she had qualified the graduation exams later

and not on the date of applying for the said post of Assistant Sub

Inspector in CISF.

Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, the learned CGSC appears on advance

notice on behalf of the respondents.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The University had issued a provisional certificate in favour of the

petitioner on 17th August, 2012 and the same clearly indicates that the

petitioner was declared successful in the final examination of B.Com

(Hons) with third division, having secured 848 marks out of 1700 marks.

Copy of the mark sheet dated 12th August, 2012 which has been placed on

record by the petitioner, demonstrates that in the Part III examination, the

petitioner had scored a total of 308 out of 550 marks and in one of the

optional papers, she had scored 18 marks out of 55. The petitioner had

applied to the University, seeking increase in marks in the said optional

paper and acceding to her request, the University had increased the marks

in the said optional paper from 18 to 36, thus, making the total score in

Part-III as 326 out of 550 marks. The fresh statement of marks dated 6th

August, 2013 issued by the University is not as a result of any fresh

examination or supplementary examination written by the petitioner, but

just an increase in one of the marks in one of the optional papers as the

petitioner had sought revaluations of marks in the said paper. It is not the

case that the petitioner had not qualified the graduation course as the

provisional certificate placed on record, clearly shows that the petitioner

was declared successful in her written examination with third division

having secured 848 marks out of 1700.

We thus, find that the stand taken by the respondents in the

impugned letter dated 20.8.2014 that the final result was declared on 6th

August, 2013 is ex-facie perverse, irrational and cannot be sustained. It

appears that the officer concerned, has in a most casual and lackadaisical

manner, without appreciating the documents placed on record and the fact

that the petitioner had qualified the graduation course, based on the

earlier documents and was fully eligible to apply for the post,

misconstrued the later mark sheet as if the examination result of the

petitioner in the graduation course was declared i.e. after the cut-off date

of 1st January, 2013.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the present petition filed by

the petitioner deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the respondents are

directed to issue an appointment letter in favour of the petitioner for the

post for which the petitioner had qualified all the tests in all respects,

subject to her fulfilling all other eligibility conditions, within a period of

four weeks from the date of this order.

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed

off.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J

NAJMI WAZIRI, J NOVEMBER 17, 2014 pkb