Delhi High Court
Sarvesh Agrawal vs Union Of India & Anr on 9 August, 2018
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 9th August, 2018
+ LPA 135/2017
SARVESH AGRAWAL ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Ashwin Kumar Nair, Mr.Vidit
Monga and Mr. Vikas Upadhyay,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned
Single Judge of this Court dated 26.05.2016 in a writ petition filed by
the petitioner, appellant herein.
2. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this appeal are that an
advertisement bearing no.NGT(PB)59/RR/2013 was published by the
National Green Tribunal(NGT) inviting applications for recruitment to
the post of PA Stenographer-Grade C/Court Master on 17.04.2013. The
appellant made an application on 22.04.2013 and applied for the post of
PA/Court Master(Hindi). He was informed on his registered mobile
number to submit documents relating to his present employment with
the Government on 03.06.2013. Admittedly, the appellant appeared in
the written examination conducted on 08.09.2013.
3. The complaint of the appellant is that he was not informed about the
outcome of the written examination, which forced him to contact the
office of respondent no.2/NGT on telephone on 25.09.2013. On
04.10.2013, the appellant was informed that the result had been
declared and is available on another web-site. On checking the web-
site, the appellant was shocked to learn that although he had qualified in
the written examination, but he was never informed about the date of
interview, which led to filing of two representations dated 05.10.2013
and 28.10.2013. The appellant admittedly was called for the interview
subsequently.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had pressed two
grounds, firstly the successful candidate in the OBC category had
resigned, but neither the first candidate in the waiting list nor the second
candidate, i.e., the appellant herein was offered the post, but the person
at Serial no.3 was selected.
5. Mr. Gogna, learned counsel for the respondent has fairly admitted and
as noticed by the learned Single Judge that since the person who had
resigned belonged to a reserve post was from OBC category, the next
person from the OBC category was offered to fill the post.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant is satisfied with this explanation, but
submits that that the entire procedure followed by the respondent was
not transparent and was not free from doubt as the appellant was
interviewed after a gap of 102 days and names of none of the persons
who were interviewed subsequently were included in the list of selected
candidates. Additionally, the counsel submits that the interview
conducted was a sham as even prior to the date of the interview of the
appellant, the selected candidates were issued appointment letters and
the persons who had already starting working.
7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Although, we find
it rather strange that the respondent had conducted the interview of
some of the candidates after a gap of 102 days, we also find it strange
that once the respondent had decided to conduct the second interview,
there was no reason for them to issue appointment letters to the
candidates who had already been selected pursuant to the first interview
held, to this Mr. Gogna has labored hard and also produced the record
to contend that since some of the candidates did not receive the
interview letters, the respondent acted in a fair and just manner and
conducted the second interview and since the appellant and similarly
situated persons did not qualify, thus the delay in conducting the
interview cannot be faulted.
8. We are persuaded by the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant
that there would be no purpose of conducting the second round of
interview when the selected candidates were already issued
appointment letters without any rider that their appointment was subject
to the second round of interview.
9. At this stage, we had asked the learned counsel for the appellant that the
rights of the selected candidates would be affected if this Court was to
decide the matter, to which learned counsel for the appellant submits
that he was conscious of this fact and he had made an application even
prior to the notice being issued in the writ petition to implead the
selected candidates as parties. The learned Single Judge did not
entertain the application.
10. Keeping the aforesaid background in mind, we are of the considered
view that this matter requires consideration. Without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the matter, the impugned order dated
26.05.2016 is set aside. The matter would be listed before the learned
Single Judge, when notice would be issued in the application seeking
impleadment of the selected candidates of the first list and the
interviewed candidates of the second list and upon hearing of all the
parties, a fresh decision would be taken in the matter.
11. The parties to appear before the learned Single Judge on 20.09.2018.
12. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
AUGUST 09, 2018
pst
