Delhi High Court
Sushil Gaur And Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 6 October, 2021
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 6.10.2021
+ W.P.(C) 11375/2021
SUSHIL GAUR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Mr.
Kamal R. Digpaul, Adv. for UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
CM APPL. 35032-33/2021
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 11375/2021
2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is
taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
3. This writ petition is directed against an interlocutory order dated
14.09.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short, "the
Tribunal"].
3.1. The impugned order appears to have been passed in the interlocutory
application i.e., M.A. No.2153/2021 and the main matter i.e., O.A.
No.925/2021.
3.2. The petitioners before us are aggrieved by the interim direction issued
by the Tribunal, vide order dated 14.09.2021.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
W.P.(C) 11375/2021 Pg. 1 of 8
Signing Date:08.10.2021
16:03:18
4. At this juncture, we may note that, this is the second round for the
petitioners, inasmuch as they approached this Court on an earlier occasion
as well, when interim protection was not granted by the Tribunal.
4.1. The petitioners had filed a writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No.7917/2021.
The said writ petition was directed against the order dated 22.07.2021,
passed by the Tribunal, in the very same O.A. i.e., O.A. No.925/2021.
4.2. On 06.08.2021, we had disposed of the aforementioned writ petition,
with the following observations:
"2. This writ petition is directed against the interim order
dated 22.07.2021, passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal (in short 'the tribunal') in OA No.925/2021.
2.1. The Tribunal has fixed the main matter for final disposal
on 24.11.2021.
3. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, who appears on behalf of the
petitioners, says that the main matter will be rendered
infructuous, as the selection process will get over on
16.09.2021.
3.1. To be noted, in the order dated 22.07.2021, the Tribunal
has indicated that, the final selection process concerning
Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2019 shall be
subject to the final outcome in the main matter i.e.
O.A.No.925/2021.
3.2. Mr. Gupta says that, the respondents were given three
opportunities to file a reply despite which reply has not been
filed by the respondents.
3.3 In this behalf, Mr. Gupta has drawn our attention to the
fact [which is also noticed by the Tribunal in the impugned
order] that, opportunity was given by the Tribunal to the
respondents to file a reply in the aforesaid OA on following
dates i.e. 30.04.2021, 07.07.2021 and lastly, via the
impugned order, dated 22.07.2021.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
W.P.(C) 11375/2021 Pg. 2 of 8
Signing Date:08.10.2021
16:03:18
3.4. We are told by Mr. Gupta that, the reply has not been
filed, as yet, although, the extended timeframe [i.e. two
weeks, granted via the impugned order] is coming to an end
shortly.
3.5. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, who appears on advance notice on
behalf of the respondents, does not dispute the fact that, the
respondents have taken time from the Tribunal, to file a
reply, as indicated above, on three occasions.
3.6. Mr. Kumar says that, a reply will be filed within the
timeframe accorded by the Tribunal, vide order dated
22.07.2021.
3.7. Mr. Kumar says that, the best way forward in the matter
would be to advance the date of hearing before the Tribunal
in O.A.No.925/2021, as that is the only way to avoid
complications in the matter.
4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, list the matter i.e. O.A.No.925/2021
before the concerned Registrar of the Tribunal on 13.08.2021
to ensure that the pleadings in the matter are completed.
4.1. The matter i.e. OA No. 925/2021 will be placed before
the concerned Bench of the Tribunal, for directions, on
01.09.2021.
5. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
6. The Registry will dispatch a copy of the order passed
today to the Registrar of the Tribunal."
4.3. It is not in dispute that, pursuant to our order dated 06.08.2021, the
matter was placed before the concerned bench of the Tribunal on
01.09.2021.
4.4. We are informed [and there is, once again, no dispute on that score,]
that, the matter was, thereafter, listed on 06.09.2021, 13.09.2021 and
14.09.2021.
4.5. As noted above, on 14.09.2021, as indicated hereinabove, the
impugned order was passed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
W.P.(C) 11375/2021 Pg. 3 of 8
Signing Date:08.10.2021
16:03:18
5. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, who appears for the petitioners, says that, despite
directions being issued by this Court, neither a substantive direction was
issued in the interlocutory application nor was the main matter heard, by the
Tribunal
5.1. In this behalf, it would be relevant, at this point, to extract the
observations made by the Tribunal, in the impugned order:
"9. We have already recorded that various judgments have
been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsels for
the parties and it may not be possible to hear the matter
finally and pass final order(s) before the Tier IV examination
scheduled on 15.09.2021 for paucity of time. It is not in
dispute that interim relief has been sought by the applicants
vide Para-9 of the OA as well as the MA referred to
hereinabove. However, an appropriate interim relief could
not be granted in order to enable the respondents to file their
reply/short reply. It may also not in dispute that, in the facts
and circumstances, appropriate interim relief can be granted
by this Tribunal in view of the Rules of Practice as well as
having inherent jurisdiction.
10. Learned counsel for the applicants has very fairly
submitted that Tier-IV examination is scheduled on
15.09.2021 and the applicants being at various places of the
country may not be in a position to participate in the Tier-IV
examination scheduled on 15.09.2021 even if this Tribunal
passes an order in this regard and the respondents permit
them even provisionally for such participation.
xxx xxx xxx
12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the
interest of justice, as an interim measure, it is directed that
the result of Tier-II, Tier-III and Tier-IV examinations and/or
final result pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement/notice
dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure A-1) shall be subject to the final
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
W.P.(C) 11375/2021 Pg. 4 of 8
Signing Date:08.10.2021
16:03:18
decision in the present OA."
5.2. Mr. Ajay Digpaul, who appears for the respondents, informs us that,
the last leg of the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2019 [in short
"CGLE 2019"] stands concluded. The last leg, we are told, required the
concerned candidates, who had crossed various tiers, to take a skill test.
5.3. The record shows that, the candidates were supposed to pass through
four tiers. The petitioners before us, concededly, participated in three tiers
i.e., Tier-1, Tier-II and Tier-III.
5.4. As a matter of fact, the grievance of the petitioners earlier was that
their marks for Tier-II were not disclosed .
5.5. On merits, the essential grievance of the petitioners is that, the method
of normalisation, which is applied by the respondents qua the marks of the
candidates, has been carried out in a warped manner.
5.6. Illustratively, Mr. Gupta has drawn our attention to paragraph 27 of
the writ petition. For the sake of convenience and in order to appreciate the
essential grievance of the petitioners, the said paragraph is extracted
hereafter:
"27. Upon a perusal of Tier 2 marks of the Petitioners, it is
clear that the marks obtained by the Petitioners in Tier 2
examination have been illegally and unjustly reduced. The
data shows that the reduction of marks of the Petitioners due
to normalization has been absurdly high for the Maths paper.
For example - the reduction of marks due to normalization in
Tier 2 examination of maths paper (out of a total of 200
Marks) has been as below:-
S.NO. PETITIONER REDUCTION OF MARKS DUE
NAME TO NORMALIZATION IN
MATHS PAPER
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
W.P.(C) 11375/2021 Pg. 5 of 8
Signing Date:08.10.2021
16:03:18
6. Manu Sharma -242
7. Jatin Jain -226
8. Manish Kumar -207.6
9. Monika Meena -169
10. Ankita -153
It is highly absurd that for the Maths paper, which itself was of
200 marks, the normalization has resulted in reduction of more
than 200 marks in cases mentioned above. For all Petitioners
such absurd reduction of marks has been made by the
Respondents. It is evident that the Petitioners have been unjustly
and arbitrarily penalised. Copies of the marks released by the
Respondents for Tier 2 examination of the Petitioners is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-18(Colly). A copy of a
table which shows the absurd reduction of marks due to
normalization of the Petitioners is annexed herewith and marked
as ANNEXURE P-19."
6. Mr. Gupta also informs us that, nearly 50,000 candidates would
perhaps get selected, pursuant to the aforementioned examination.
6.1. It is Mr. Gupta's contention that, if the final selections take place, it
would complicate the matter beyond repair.
6.2. Mr. Digpaul, cannot but accept the position, that the failure to deal
appropriately with the interlocutory application would lead to a situation,
which would complicate the inter-se rights of the parties, not only the ones
who stand arrayed in the O.A. i.e., the original applicants, but also the rights
of those, who may acquire interest, once the selection process is concluded.
7. We must also record our concern as regards the Tribunal's failure to
appreciate the reason as to why the order dated 06.08.2021 [as referred to
hereinabove] was passed by this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
W.P.(C) 11375/2021 Pg. 6 of 8
Signing Date:08.10.2021
16:03:18
7.1. Undoubtedly, if selections take place, it would result in complications,
which may be difficult to address.
7.2 What is even more curious is that, when the petitioners had
approached this Court for the first time, the date given by the Tribunal for
disposing of the O.A. i.e., O.A. No.925/2021 was 24.11.2021, and because
of persistent accommodation sought by the respondents, the end result is that
the matter is now fixed for disposal, on 29.11.2021.
8. Thus, having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we are
constrained to issue the following directions:
(i) Since all four tier examinations i.e., Tier-I to IV have already been
conducted, the respondents are restrained from disclosing the result qua
CGLE 2019, till the disposal of the O.A. i.e., O.A. No.925/2021.
(ii) The results of the candidates will be kept in a sealed cover, and
appointment letter(s) to successful candidates will not be issued, till such
time, the Tribunal disposes of the O.A.
(iii) At the time of disposing of the O.A., the Tribunal will pass suitable
directions as to what is required to be done, at the respondents' end.
(iv) The respondents will also communicate, via a post uploaded on their
official website [having regard to the large number of candidates who are
involved in the examination, as adverted to hereinabove] that, their
appointment will be subject to the result in O.A. No.925/2021.
9. The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
10. We expect the Tribunal to hear the parties and dispose of the matter,
at the earliest, without further delay.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
W.P.(C) 11375/2021 Pg. 7 of 8
Signing Date:08.10.2021
16:03:18
11. Parties will be at liberty to move the Tribunal, for advancing the date
of hearing.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TALWANT SINGH, J
OCTOBER 6, 2021/rb
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
W.P.(C) 11375/2021 Pg. 8 of 8
Signing Date:08.10.2021
16:03:18
