Delhi High Court
Lalit Kala Akademi vs Sh. Anshul Kumar on 23 August, 2019
$~84
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 23.08.2019
+ W.P.(C) 9103/2019
LALIT KALA AKADEMI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Mahender Kr. Bhardwaj and
Mr. K.C. Dubey, Advs.
versus
SH. ANSHUL KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
A.K. CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 37607/2019
Delay condoned. Application stands disposed off.
W.P.(C) 9103/2019 AND CM APPL. 37606/2019
By the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated
29.11.2018 passed by the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with
Disabilities (Divyangjan), whereby, respondent No.1 has been directed to be
appointed against the post of MTS.
2. Concisely, the facts giving rise to the writ petition are that there was
one post of MTS with the petitioner under PwD category in Group 'C' PB-I
for hearing impaired persons. For the selection to such post, the petitioner
held a written examination besides skill test and drew a merit position. The
merit position so drawn was, as under :
Sl.No. Name of Candidate Written Computer Position
Test Test
1. Shri Anshul Kumar 45 49.9 1st
position
2. Ms. K.B. Vidya 41 29.9 2nd
Subramanian position
3. Shri Kamal Hasija 30 34.9 3rd
position
3. There is no dispute to the fact that the respondent stood at serial No.1
in such merit list. The appointment to such post however came to be offered
to the person at serial No.2 i.e. Ms. K.B. Vidya Subramanian. Ld. counsel
for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was within its right to offer
such post to the person appearing at serial No.2 as a Selection Committee
formed thereafter, found the person at serial No.2 to be best suited for the
subject post from amongst the merit list. Decision so taken on the basis of
recommendations of the committee, came to be set aside by the Court of
Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) vide the
impugned order with the observations, as follows :
"7. During the hearing, counsel of the complainant
reiterated written submissions and representatives of the
respondent has also reiterated his written submissions. After
hearing both parties, it has been observed that DOP&T vide
OM No. 39020/01/2013-Estt (B) - Part dated 29.12.2015 has
already decided to discontinue interview for recruitment at Jr.
Level posts in Government of India and there is no provision
for selection on interaction basis, complainant namely Shri
Anshul Kumar was stood first in the merit after Written test,
Computer test & Skill test, the case is disposed of with the
direction to the respondent to appoint complainant and submit
compliance report within 30 days from receipt of this Order."
4. Ld. counsel for the petitioner faults the conclusion so drawn by the
Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan)
adverting to sub-clause (f) of para 2 of OM dated 29.12.2015, which reads,
as under :
"It is also clarified that as Skill Test or Physical Test is
different from interview, and they may continue. However,
these tests will only be of qualifying nature. Assessment will not
be done on the basis of marks for such tests.
On a plain reading of the foregoing clause of OM dated 29.12.2015,
this court does not see any perversity in the impugned order of the Chief
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan), which would
invite invocation of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Suffice to observe, the OM dated 29.12.2015 is in the nature of
clarifications to the policy decision of the Government of India to
discontinue interview for recruitment for all Group 'C', Group 'D' (which are
now re-classified as Group 'C') posts and for non-gazetted posts of Group 'B'
category and all such equivalent posts. Even otherwise, on merits, sub-clause
(f) of para 2 of OM dated 29.12.2015 cannot be construed to mean that skill
or physical test is to be treated to be at par with interview. Skill or physical
test is conducted taking note of the specific requirement of duties to be
discharged for the given post. In that view of the matter, the selection that
came to be made by the petitioner and which has come to be set aside by the
court of Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) -
this court has no hesitation to observe - was in utter violation of the decision
to discontinue interview at junior level posts.
5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the petition. Dismissed.
A. K. CHAWLA, J
AUGUST 23, 2019
rc
