Delhi High Court
Poonam And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 10 October, 2018
$~5 and 6.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12047/2016
POONAM AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sarat Chandra, Advocate
AND
+ W.P.(C) 3323/2017
MADAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Poonam Kalia, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 10.10.2018
CM APPL. 13452/2018 (by the respondents for condonation of delay of
50 days in filing the counter affidavit) in W.P.(C) 12047/2016
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The
delay of 50 days in filing the counter affidavit is condoned.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12047/2016 [CM APPL. 47606/2016 (stay)] and W.P.(C)
3323/2017
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in
issuing a Notification dated 08.11.2016, cancelling the recruitment to the
post of Inspector (Hindi Translator) - 2015 in the ITBP due to administrative
reasons and further, informing that fresh vacancies for the subject post will
be advertised in due course.
2. Vide order dated 22.12.2016, the respondents were permitted to re-
advertise the vacancies in question but it was directed that no final
appointment shall be made without leave of this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the respondents could
not have scrapped the entire examination on the ground that there were
errors in tallying the results on the part of the examiner in 3 successive
evaluations. He submits that there were only 179 candidates who had
participated in the said examination and therefore, those who had secured
the qualifying marks in the final evaluation, ought to have been appointed by
the respondents.
4. Mr. Sarat Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents however
disagrees and states that subsequent to declaring the result of the subject
examination on the website of the ITBP, the same had to be re-called on
account of several shortcomings in the process, which included incorrect
framing of questions, incorrect answer key, change in the merit lists thrice
over, amongst others.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the
respondents as recorded in the order dated 07.12.2017, the respondents were
directed to prepare a comprehensive statement in respect of all the 179
candidates, indicating inter alia the relevant information including the marks
that were granted to them during all the three evaluations. The respondents
were also directed to indicate therein as to which of the candidates had by
now become over age to apply for the said post.
6. In compliance with the said directions, the respondents have filed an
application enclosing therewith the information, as directed. Further, the
respondents have filed a supplementary counter affidavit wherein, it has
been averred that the written examination for the above recruitment was held
on 28.02.2016 and 179 candidates had appeared for the same. After
evaluation and conduct of interviews on 15/16-03-2016, the list of qualified
candidates in the written test was forwarded to the Director General, ITBP,
New Delhi for uploading the same on the website of the ITBP, which was
accordingly uploaded on the website of the ITBP, for a detailed medical
examination, to be conducted on 18.03.2016. After conducting the detailed
medical examination, all the relevant documents relating to the recruitment
process were sent to the Nodal Officer on 21.03.2016. When all the
documents received from the Recruitment Board were examined at the end
of the Nodal Officer, some irregularities were noticed in the answer sheets
of various candidates including the one who had secured the first rank in the
written examination. It was also found that there were some other
irregularities in the evaluation of the answer sheets of the written
examination.
7. The said irregularities were brought to the notice of the DG, ITBP
and was followed by a detailed discussion held between the DG, ITBP and
IG Headquarter, Directorate General, ITBP and it was decided that
appropriate action should be taken on this issue by the Nodal Officer, who
was responsible for conducting the recruitment process. As a result thereof,
the Nodal Officer decided to send all the answer sheets of the written
examination to the Presiding Officer of the Recruitment Board for a
thorough re-evaluation and the re-evaluation took place on 29.03.2016.
After noticing several shortcomings in the evaluation of the answer sheets
and noticing significant variation in the marks of the two merit lists, a
decision was then taken at the level of the Director General to constitute an
independent high level Board of Officers for conducting another re-
evaluation of answer sheets and prepare a revised merit list.
8. After a thorough re-evaluation of the answer sheets, it came to the
notice of the Board of officers that there were several other shortcomings in
the evaluation process carried out thus far, including inaccurate setting of
questions, inaccurate preparation of answer key and even the second re-
evaluation had not been conducted as per directions of the Nodal Officer,
etc. After the third re-evaluation at the level of Directorate General, it was
noticed that there were substantial changes in the merit list and it was
observed that some of the candidates did not secure necessary marks and
were not eligible to be shortlisted for the interview, which had already been
conducted. In these circumstances, the Board recommended cancellation of
the entire recruitment process and uploaded the said decision on the website
of the ITBP on 04.11.2016.
9. We have examined the statement submitted by the respondents
showing the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examinations
held on 28.02.2016 and in all the three evaluations, including the marks
awarded in the interview as also in the first and second evaluations
(alongwith their age as on 07.12.16) for recruitment to the subject post. On
perusing the said statement, we find that there are extreme variations in the
marks of some of the candidates in the three evaluation conducted by the
respondents.
10. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it would not be appropriate for
the respondents to declare the final result on the basis of the third re-
evaluation as is being prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Instead, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petitions with
directions issued to the respondents to conduct a fresh recruitment for the
post of Inspector (Hindi Translator) in the ITBP in a time bound manner as
much time has already been lost in the process. The entire process shall be
concluded by the respondents within four months from today including
declaration of the results. The fresh process shall be supervised by a senior
ranking officer of the ITBP to ensure that there are no further errors,
omissions, etc., in the process. It is also directed that as a one time measure,
all the candidates who had participated in the subject examination earlier,
would be treated as eligible to participate in the proposed examination, even
if they have become overage as, in our opinion, they cannot be blamed in
such a situation since the entire fault lies at the door of the respondents.
11. The petitions are disposed of, along with the pending application. In
the event, the respondents fail to adhere to the time schedule fixed at their
request, as has been noted above, the petitioners shall be at liberty to take
appropriate legal recourse.
HIMA KOHLI, J
REKHA PALLI, J.
OCTOBER 10, 2018
na
