Delhi High Court
Shri Sudhir Rana vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 21 October, 2019
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 21.10.2019
+ W.P.(C) 4980/2019 & CM APPL. 38191/2019
SHRI SUDHIR RANA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel for GNCTD (services)
with Mr.Nitesh Kumar Singh,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
JUDGMENT
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. No. 38191/2019 (delay in filing short affidavit)
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 20
days in filing the short affidavit is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No. 4980/2019
Pursuant to a recruitment advertisement issued in the year 2013
for the post of Constable (Ex) in
Delhi Police, the petitioner applied for the said post against the
W.P.(C) No. 4980/2019 page 1 of 5
"Unreserved" category. The petitioner also sought benefits of column
12(a) and (b) of the recruitment instructions i.e. he claimed benefit of
height of 178 cms or more and of having an NCC „C‟ certificate. The
petitioner claimed a bonus mark under each of these categories.
2. The complaint of the petitioner is that despite having succeeded
in the written examination and having appeared for the Physical
Endurance and Measurement Test (PE&MT), his name was not shown
in the list of successful candidates.
3. Consequently the petitioner made an application under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 and sought reasons for his candidature
being rejected in the Selection list. Respondent No. 2 in reply to the
RTI application, vide Memo dated 04.03.2016, stated that one bonus
mark for height was given to the petitioner but since the petitioner did
not produce a copy of the NCC „C‟ certificate during the PE&MT held
on 17.10.2013 before the „Document Checking Team‟, as per the
instructions contained in the advertisement, his candidature was
rejected.
4. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner possesses an NCC „C‟ certificate, the original of which he
has produced before us and which has been seen and returned and
there was no reason for him not to have produced the same when all
other original documents were in fact produced. Counsel has also
drawn the attention of this court to the Admit Card, which forms part
W.P.(C) No. 4980/2019 page 2 of 5
of the written examination, in which the word „NCC‟ finds mention.
In short, the submission of Mr. Chauhan is that having an NCC „C‟
certificate and having claimed the benefit of one extra mark for
possessing an NCC „C‟ certificate even at the time of filling-up the
form, there was no reason for the petitioner not to produce the original
certificate at the time of physical verification of documents by the
respondents.
5. Ms. Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondents has produced
the original record of the PE & MT to show that the column of NCC
„C‟ certificate is shown blank. She explains that there were six sets of
officers who were dealing with the PE & MT. While some of the
officers had clearly marked „Yes‟ in the column of NCC „C‟
certificate, where available, the officers dealing with the petitioner‟s
case had left the column blank. She submits that since the column had
been left blank, there is a presumption that the petitioner had not
produced the original certificate ; and thus, no benefit could accrue in
the favour of the petitioner.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered
their rival contentions. The issue in hand is short and straight-forward.
7. The admitted position is that had the petitioner produced the
original NCC „C‟ certificate, the petitioner would have been given the
benefit of column (12) of the recruitment advertisement, which we
reproduce below:-
W.P.(C) No. 4980/2019 page 3 of 5
"12. BONUS MARKS FOR THE POST OF
CONSTABLE (EXE.)-MALE
(a) A candidate whose height is 178 cms or more will
be given 1 (one) bonus mark.
(b) Candidates possessing NCC 'C' certificate will be
given 1 (one) bonus mark (This benefit is not available for
Ex-servicemen)."
8. The petitioner has produced before us the original NCC „C‟
certificate. We find that at the time of PE&MT, the officers dealing
with each candidate had either left the column blank or had written
„Yes‟ or „‟ or „NCC „C‟ Yes‟ or „NCC „C‟ or „Yes C‟. In some other
columns „No‟ has been written. Several columns have also been left
blank.
9. After examining the original records, we find that the officers
dealing with the physical verification of original documents at the
stage of PE&MT have either been careless in marking the column
clearly or were not attentive and meticulous in filling-up the forms,
which was the final step towards recruitment of applicants.
10. In our view, it was incumbent upon the officers concerned to
either mark „yes‟ or „no‟, which has been done in the case of other
candidates but in the case of the petitioner, the column for NCC „C‟
Certificate has been left blank.
11. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner does in fact possess
the requisite certificate, we are inclined to give benefit to the
W.P.(C) No. 4980/2019 page 4 of 5
petitioner, who had duly applied, appeared in the written examination
and was successful on all other counts. Thus, his candidature cannot
be denied on account of a careless and callous attitude of the
concerned officers/examiners.
12. Resultantly, the impugned order of the Tribunal is quashed.
Subject to the petitioner completing other formalities, if any, the
petitioner would be entitled to be considered for the concerned post by
adding one more mark towards NCC „C‟ certificate. The petitioner
would further be entitled to Notional Seniority and pay-fixation along
with his batch mates.
13. With the above directions the present writ petition and pending
application are disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
OCTOBER 21, 2019
j
W.P.(C) No. 4980/2019 page 5 of 5
