Delhi High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs Intelligence Bureau & Anr on 3 May, 2016
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3750/2016
% Date of Decision: 03.05.2016
SANJAY KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sree Narain Jha, Adv.
versus
INTELLIGENCE BUREAU & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Ms. Astha Jain,
Ms. Sanjugeeta Moktan, Ms. Mahima Bahl &
Mr. Sumant Bhushan, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
CM No.15950/2016(delay)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing
the petition is condoned.
W.P.(C) 3750/2016
2. This writ petition impugns the judgment and order dated
31.08.2015 of the Central Administrative Tribunal ('the Tribunal'
for short) in T.A. No. 62 of 2013 dismissing the petitioner's claim to
be appointed to the post of Junior Intelligence Officer, Grade-
II/Motor Transport Group 'C' Non-Gazetted in the Intelligence
Bureau.
3. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 23.05.2009, the petitioner
had applied for the aforesaid post. The advertisement specified that
the candidates will be required to drive any kind of motor vehicle
and will also be responsible for its upkeep. It further stipulated the
following essential qualifications - (i) matriculation or equivalent;
(ii) possession of valid driving licence for motor cars; (iii)
knowledge of motor mechanism; and (iv) experience for driving a
motor car for atleast 3 years. As per the advertisement, interviews
were to be conducted at 8 different cities spread over the country.
4. In his initial test and interview, the petitioner was given 50
marks out of 100 marks (i.e., 28 marks out of 60 marks in the driving
test and 22 marks out of 40 marks in the interview). Subsequently, it
was decided that, for the purpose of uniform assessment of
interviews on all India basis, all candidates, who had qualified for
the driving test would be interviewed afresh by a 'Single Board' at
all the 8 centres. This board then took fresh interviews in the months
of November-December, 2009. A merit list was prepared on the
basis of marks obtained both in the driving test and the interviews.
The petitioner, who belonged to the general category, was
interviewed at Jaipur on 12.09.2009, by the Single Interview Board.
He was awarded 24 marks out of 40 marks, thus scoring a total of 52
marks out of 100 (by including 28 marks previously scored in the
driving test). So, in fact, the petitioner secured 2 percentage points
higher in this subsequent interview than the score in the first
interview. Nevertheless, he was not selected because the last general
category candidate empanelled had secured 78 marks, i.e., 26 marks
higher than the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, initially, the
respondent had stated that 50 marks had been kept for assessing
motor driving skills along with knowledge of the functioning of
motor engine mechanism/ repairs and 50 marks were kept for the
interview. However, later, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's
argument that 60 marks have been allocated for driving test, i.e., 40
marks for driving and 20 marks for knowledge apropos mechanism/
repair of engines while the remaining 40 marks were allocated for
the interview. These, learned counsel submits, show irregularities
and interpolation of marks.
6. We are not persuaded by this argument for the simple reason
that an error or mistake made earlier, will not confer any right to the
petitioner. The respondent has in its reply to the O.A., affirmatively
stated that the allocation of marks for testing driving skills and marks
allotted for knowledge of motor engine and mechanism/ repairs, etc.
was 60 and for the interview was 40, both in the first and the second
assessment. The said statement on Oath, should be accepted. The
allocation and division, it is difficult to perceive and accept, could be
redone and written, after changing the score from 50 to 60 marks.
The details and marks have to be entered and recorded. In the first
interview, the petitioner secured only 22 marks whereas in the
subsequent single board interview he secured 24 marks out of 40
marks. Therefore, there was no misrepresentation apropos the break-
up of marks allocated for testing of driving skills and for interview.
7. We agree with the reasoning of the Tribunal that allocation of
more marks for motor driving skills was worthy of credence because
it is mainly for the purpose of driving of a motor vehicle that that
aptitude was to be assessed.
8. We do not find any merit in the matter. The petition is
accordingly dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
SANJIV KHANNA, J
MAY 03, 2016/acm
