Sarvesh Agrawal vs Union Of India & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 4037 Del

$~11.

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       W.P.(C) 1978/2016 and CM APPL. 13380/2016
        SARVESH AGRAWAL                         ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. Amanya Mishra, Advocate

                           versus

        UNION OF INDIA & ANR                      ..... Respondents
                      Through: Ms. L. Gangmei, Advocate for
                      Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                           ORDER

% 26.05.2016

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for setting aside the selection process relating to the appointments made by the respondent No.2/NGT to the posts of PA (Stenographer- Grade C)/Court Master, on the ground that they have violated the procedure laid down in the Advertisement dated 17.04.2013, whereunder applications were invited for recruitment/appointment to several posts (Annexure A1).

2. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for recruitment to the post of PA/Stenographer (Hindi) in response to the aforesaid advertisement and had appeared for his written examination on 08.09.2013. The petitioner claims that he did not receive any information about the results of the written examination and when he did approach the respondents on 25.09.2013, he was informed that the same was in the

pipeline. The petitioner had again enquired about the results from the office of the respondent No.2 on 04.10.2013, when he was informed that the results had already been declared and the same were displayed on their website. On going through the website of the respondent No.2/NGT, the petitioner learnt that the results had been declared on 27.09.2013 and he had qualified for the interview.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 gave a written intimation dated 21.12.2003 to the petitioner, calling upon him and others for an interview on 10.01.2014. The petitioner had duly participated in the said interview and the results were declared on 26.08.2014. As per the said results pertaining to the post of P.A. (Stenographer Grade-C/Court Master) (Annexure A-6), ten candidates were selected out of whom, two candidates at Sr.No.4 and 8 were OBC candidates, whereas the rest were from general category. A reserved/waiting panel was also prepared by the respondent No.2, comprising of 11 persons. The name of the petitioner, who is a general category candidate, featured at Sr.No.2 of the said wait list.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that Shri Dilip Kumar, one of the successful candidate in the OBC category mentioned at Sr.No.4 of the select list, had resigned later on and thereafter, either the first candidate, i.e. Ms. Geeta Joshi or the second candidate in the reserved list, i.e. the petitioner herein, ought to have been appointed but the respondents had arbitrarily gone down the list and selected the candidate at Sr.No.3 of the wait list.

5. A perusal of the select list of the successful candidates and the reserved/waiting panel prepared by the respondent No.2/NGT reveals that

the candidate at Sr.No.3 of the reserved list is from the OBC category and quite evidently, when Shri Dilip Kumar, who was also an OBC category candidate, had resigned, the respondent No.2 had proceeded to select an OBC candidate at Sr. No.3 from the reserved list, in his place. This Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the aforesaid procedure followed by the respondents.

6. The next submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents had discriminated against the Hindi Stenographers by not intimating them on time about the date of the interview. The aforesaid grievance does not survive once the petitioner had admittedly received a written intimation dated 21.12.2013 from the respondent No.2/NGT, calling upon him to participate in the interview on 10.01.2014 and he had duly participated in the process. No other argument has been addressed by the counsel for the petitioner to challenge the selection process adopted by the respondent No.2/NGT.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed alongwith the pending application.

HIMA KOHLI, J MAY 26, 2016 rkb/ap