Delhi High Court
Praveen vs The Registrar General, Delhi High ... on 14 February, 2022
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:14.02.2022
+ W.P.(C) 10281/2021
PRAVEEN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Pranay Majumdar, Adv.
versus
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT
..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rajat Aneja and Ms.
Rajula, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
1. The present petition has been filed seeking setting aside of
decision of the respondents, whereby the candidature of the petitioner
for the post of 'Chauffeur' has been rejected. The petitioner further
seeks setting aside of the letter dated 17.03.2021, whereby the
representation of the petitioner seeking review of the aforementioned
decision was rejected; and issuance of directions to the respondent for
appointment of the petitioner to the post of 'Chauffeur', in the event
he is found successful.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:16.02.2022
18:38:01
2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement
published by the respondent, the petitioner had applied online for the
post of 'Chauffeur' on 14.08.2019. The petitioner participated in the
recruitment process and upon clearing the Written Test as well as the
Driving Skill Test, the petitioner appeared before the Interview Board.
Prior to appearing before the Interview Board, the petitioner had
completed all formalities such as submission of photocopies of
documents and display of originals of documents, including the
Experience Certificates.
3. Despite the petitioner having successfully cleared the Interview
Board, the petitioner was not found to be a successful candidate on the
ground of 'original of Experience Certificate which was uploaded
online was not produced'. The petitioner preferred a representation
dated 28.01.2021 seeking review of the cancellation of his
candidature, which was rejected by the respondent vide order dated
17.03.2021.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had got issued the first Experience Certificate from his employer vide
Ref. No. 038 dated 28.09.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Previous
Certificate'), wherein the period of employment was mentioned as
'Working with us LMV Driver w.e.f. 24/08/2016 to till date', that is till
the date of the issuance of the Experience certificate. He submits that
the petitioner was under a bona fide impression that the petitioner
ought to have a continuous or running Experience Certificate and,
therefore, requested his employer to issue him a certificate to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:16.02.2022
18:38:01
effect that he had continuously been working for them for a period of
last three years. It was based on this request that the petitioner's
employer issued a fresh Experience Certificate mentioning the exact
period for which he had worked with them (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Current Certificate'), mentioning therein that the petitioner 'has
been Working with us as an LMV Driver since last 3 Years'.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner had inadvertently uploaded the Previous Certificate at the
time of filling out his online application for the advertised post,
however, at the time of interview, produced the Current Certificate to
show his experience. He submits that for this inadvertent mistake, his
candidature could not have been cancelled by the respondents,
especially where the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria even
with the Previous Certificate.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
places reliance on the Vacancy Notice dated 01.08.2019 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Vacancy Notice') issued by the respondent inviting
applications for the post of 'Chauffeur'. He submits that the Vacancy
Notice states that at the stage of the Interview Board, the supporting
documents will be subject to scrutiny and that in the event discrepancy
is found in the online application, or any claim made in the online
application is not found substantiated, the candidature of such
candidates shall stand cancelled. The learned counsel for the
respondent submits that there was a mismatch in the Experience
Certificate submitted with the online application (that is, the Previous
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:16.02.2022
18:38:01
Certificate) and with the one presented at the stage of the Interview
Board (that is, the Current Certificate), for which reason petitioner's
candidature was rightly rejected by the respondents.
7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for both the parties.
8. When inquired upon by this Court whether the petitioner had
produced the originals of both the Previous Certificate as well as the
Current Certificate before the Interview Board, the learned counsel for
the petitioner fairly answered in the negative. The two certificates,
though bearing the same number and date, have different contents.
The decision of the respondent not to place reliance on such
Experience Certificate(s), therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary or
unreasonable.
9. In any case, we were informed during the proceedings that the
recruitment process for the post of 'Chauffeur' now stands completed.
10. In light of the peculiar circumstances of the case, and especially
because the recruitment process already stands completed and it is
admitted by the petitioner that he did not produce the Previous
Certificate before the Interview Board , this Court does not find it to
be fit case to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India and direct the re-opening of a recruitment
process, which would be unjust and unfair not only to candidates who
were rejected on similar grounds but also to those candidates who had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:16.02.2022
18:38:01
duly complied with the rules and regulations of the recruitment
process and now stand recruited.
11. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition.
The same is dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MANMOHAN, J
FEBRUARY 14, 2022/AB
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:16.02.2022
18:38:01
