Jamshed Ansari vs Union Of India & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 2646 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             W.P.(C) 3220/2015 & C.M.No.5755/2015

%                                                     27th March, 2015

JAMSHED ANSARI                                                   ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Petitioner in person.


                          versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                                     ..... Respondents
                   Through:              Mr.Vikas Mahajan, Advocate for R-1.
                                         Mr.V.N.Koura with Mr.Nikhil
                                         Mundeja, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.     By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, petitioner, who is an Advocate seeks two reliefs against the

respondent no.2/Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC). The first

relief which is prayed for by the petitioner is that the selection process

including the examination which is conducted by the respondent no.2, the

respondent no.2 should not charge fees/charges of Rs.4,000/- for

General/OBC/PWD category and Rs.3,500/- for SC/ST candidates because

the same are on the high side. Second relief which is prayed for is that for
WP(C) No. 3220/2015                                                                 Page 1 of 3
 the post in question which is of the Assistant Legal Advisor, respondent no.2

should be asked to reduce the minimum eligibility criteria of candidates and

considering candidates who have less than 60% marks in the L.L.B

examination.

2.     In my opinion, the writ petition is totally misconceived for the reason

that, firstly so far as the eligibility criteria is concerned, this Court cannot

direct an employer as to what the eligibility criteria must be fixed which it

wants to be complied, with respect to appointment for a particular post, the

post being Assistant Legal Advisor in this case. Courts cannot pass orders to

reduce high standards of eligibility criteria if an employer requires the same

for filling up a particular post. The Courts cannot substitute their own views

and decisions for the decisions taken by the management of what should be

an eligibility criteria for the post in question.

3.     So far as the relief of reduction of the fees/charges for the selection

process and the examination is concerned, it is contended that the petitioner

is an OBC candidate, and a sum of Rs.4000/- is a high amount, because in

other examinations for certain other posts the respondent no.2 is charging

lesser fees of either Rs.500/- or Rs.750/-, and therefore the fees/charges

should also be reduced for this selection process. This relief also in my

opinion is misconceived because, surely it will take accounting and statistics
WP(C) No. 3220/2015                                                          Page 2 of 3
 that the fees which are charged by the respondent no.2 are on the higher side,

and this has to be demonstrated to this Court that the fees/charges being

received by the respondent no.2 for the selection process and the

examination are much more than the costs which would be incurred by the

respondent no.2. Petition is however bereft of any statistics or basis to show

that the charges claimed by the respondent no.2 are not in accordance with

the costs to be incurred by the respondent no.2 for the subject selection

process including examination.

4.     Dismissed.




MARCH 27, 2015                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

KA