Rajdeep Kumar vs Energy Efficiency Service Ltd And ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 1128 Del

$~28
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                        Date of Order : February 16, 2018

+           W.P.(C) 1501/2018 & CM Nos.6146-47/2018
      RAJDEEP KUMAR                                     ..... Petitioner
               Through:         Mr.Parijat Kishore, Advocate

                                versus

      ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICE LTD
      AND ANR.                                      ..... Respondents
               Through: Nemo

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
             ORDER

(ORAL)

1. Petitioner claims that in response to Advertisement of 30th August, 2017 (Annexure P-1), he had applied for the post of Deputy Manager (Technical) and had participated in the written examination for short listing of candidates for group discussion and as per the RTI information of 1 st January, 2018, he had scored 40.40 marks in the written examination, whereas the lowest qualifying marks were 55. Petitioner claims to have applied for rechecking of answer sheet which according to petitioner was granted but the certified copy of the answer sheet was not provided to petitioner due to confidentiality claimed by first respondent. However, learned counsel for petitioner submits that on rechecking of his answer sheets, it was found that he has actually scored 50.60 marks and since petitioner belongs to OBC category, therefore he was eligible for being

W.P.(C) No.1501/2018 Page 1 called for the group discussion which took place in January, 2018. It is submitted by petitioner's counsel that there is overlapping in the list of candidates in the General Category as well as in the OBC category, due to which petitioner has been excluded. It is asserted that petitioner is eligible upon scoring of 50.60 marks. It is pointed out by petitioner's counsel that the lowest qualifying marks for the OBC category for the post in question is 52.25 marks. Upon a query put to petitioner's counsel, it is disclosed that the interviews for the post in question have already taken place in January, 2018 itself, but the results are awaited. The prayer made in this petition is for quashing of the written examination conducted for the post in question and a mandamus is sought to respondent to include petitioner's name in the list of shortlisted candidates for group discussion.

2. In the considered opinion of this Court, this petition is premature. Petitioner would have right to challenge the impugned selection after the results are declared.

3. With aforesaid observations, this petition and the applications are disposed of as premature.

                                                          (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                             JUDGE
FEBRUARY 16, 2018
mamta




W.P.(C) No.1501/2018                                                   Page 2