Delhi High Court
Kshitiz Chandra Vishal & Ors vs Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya ... on 3 June, 2016
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5498/2016 & CMs No.22915-16/2016
KSHITIZ CHANDRA VISHAL & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate
versus
PT. DEENDAYAL UPADHYAYA INSTITUTE FOR THE
PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Rajiv Bansal with
Mr. Siddhant Gupta, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 03.06.2016
1. The present petition has been filed by four petitioners praying inter
alia for quashing the Notification dated 19.5.2016 (wrongly typed as
19.6.2016 at Annexure P-1), whereunder the respondent/Institute has
cancelled the written tests for the post of Prosthetist and Orthotist conducted
on 30.4.2016.
2. As per the averments made in the present petition, the respondent/
Institute had issued an advertisement on 5.7.2014, inviting applications for
the posts of Prosthetist and Orthotist, in respect of four vacancies. The
examination process included a written test, followed by interview. The
written test was conducted on 30.4.2016.
3. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the result of
the scrutinized candidates was declared in 6.5..2016 and as per the said
result, the petitioner No.1 was at the top of the list of the OBC category
candidates, petitioner No.2 was positioned second in the general category,
the petitioner No.3 was positioned second in the OBC category and
petitioner No.4 was placed at the sixth position in the unreserved list.
However, to the utter shock of the petitioners, the results of the written test
were cancelled by the respondent/Institute vide impugned Notification dated
19.5.2016, whereunder they declared that the written test has been
rescheduled for 5.6.2016. Aggrieved by the said Notification, the present
petition has been filed.
4. Mr. Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent/Institute, who appears
on advance notice, hands over a set of documents and states that the entire
written examinations had to be cancelled on account of the fact that the
petitioner No.1 and another candidate had made an error in filling up their
roll numbers in the OMR sheets. When they had asked the Invigilator
present during the examination, for another set of the OMR sheet, the same
was handed over to them, not knowing that it would result in allegations of
favouritism levelled in respect of certain candidates. He submits that several
complaints were made in respect of the said examination directly to the
Department Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social
Justice & Empowerment, which had resulted in the Deputy Secretary of the
Ministry visiting the respondent/Institute on 19.5.2016 and recommending
that the entire written examination be scrapped and a fresh examination be
conducted.
5. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid visit of the
Deputy Secretary, Govt. of India, a letter dated 24.5.2016 was addressed by
the Ministry to the respondent/Institute for cancelling the written
examination in respect of the four posts in question and for conducting fresh
recruitment process as per the Recruitment Rules.
6. A perusal of the documents handed over by learned counsel for the
respondent bears out the submission made by him to the effect that second
OMR sheets had been supplied to two candidates during the written
examination including the petitioner No.1, whereas the instructions on the
sheet were to the effect that no second OMR sheet would be supplied to the
candidates. Reference has been made in the letter dated 24.5.2016 to the
fact that one of the candidates, who was supplied the second OMR sheet,
was declared eligible, thus raising questions as to the integrity of the entire
process.
7. Counsel for the respondent states that on receiving instructions from
the Ministry, the respondents had duly replied vide letter dated 27.5.2016
confirming inter alia that in compliance of the oral instructions received on
19.5.2016, the Institute has already cancelled the written examinations that
were held on 30.4.2016. He states that it is only on account of an error on
the part of the petitioner No.1 and another candidate that the written
examinations had to be scrapped and the respondent/Institute cannot be
blamed for the same in any manner.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is
not inclined to entertain the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed,
along with the pending applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J
JUNE 03, 2016
sk
