Delhi High Court - Orders
Srinivasa vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director, ... on 28 March, 2024
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4545/2024
SRINIVASA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Deora, Mr. Shiv
Nath, Mr. Prince Mohan Sinha, Mr.
Mohan Singh and Mr. Ashwani
Tanwar, Advocates.
versus
THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR,
AGRICULTURE INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIA & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Madan Gera, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER
% 28.03.2024 (The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid Mode)
1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking inter alia the following reliefs:-
"(i) writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to quash and set aside the impugned final result and consider the selection/ appointing of the petitioner against the notification CIN;tJ7499L2002 PLC 8123 Ref. No. AIC/Rect/MT (30) 2023-2024 dated 24.06.2023.
(ii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to redraw the final result list and to prepare a fresh selection list on the basis of consolidated marks in written and interview including the candidature of the Petitioner
(iii) And or to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for the fact and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under the notification dated 24.06.2023, in respect of the recruitment to the W.P.(C) 4545/2024 Page 1 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2024 at 21:55:54 post of Management Trainee (Rural Management) (30 posts), the petitioner also had applied for the same.
3. The petitioner had qualified the written online test and scored a total of 124 marks out of 150 marks, stipulated for the written examination. Subject to the interview, which was held the petitioner had scored 24.75 marks out of 50 marks.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that, as per the selection procedure in the notification, so far as the online examination was concerned, the total marks stipulated for such examination was 150 marks and qualifying marks in such examination was stipulated as 60%.
5. He submits that the petitioner had scored 124 marks, which is way above 60% minimum qualifying marks, as per the stipulation in Clause 7(A) of the selection procedure of the notification.
6. He submits that so far as the interview is concerned, no minimum cut off percentage or marks were stipulated.
7. In fact, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the selection procedure entailed pre-fixed criteria of performance in the online examination and in the interview. According to the said selection procedure, the final merit list would have to be prepared in descending order of the consolidated marks secured by the candidates.
8. He submits that apart from the aforesaid, there was no further distinction between the marks scored in the online examination on the one hand and the interview on the other.
9. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had scored an overall of 148.75 marks out of 200 and ought to have ordinarily W.P.(C) 4545/2024 Page 2 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2024 at 21:55:54 been in the select list, however was not figuring in the Final Select List.
10. According to learned counsel, for the EWS category, the cut off marks that was published, was 147.25. In view thereof, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner ought to have been selected.
11. Learned counsel submits that the rules of the game cannot be changed mid-way, as has been held by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court.
12. Issue notice.
13. Notice is accepted by Mr. Madan Gera, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
14. At the outset, Mr. Gera, learned counsel for the respondents invites attention of this Court to the concerned notification/ advertisement to submit that, in respect of the interview, it was categorically mentioned that the "Company reserves the right to fix the eligibility standards in order to restrict/ enhance the candidates to be called for interview commensurate to the number of vacancies".
15. That apart, he submits that it was categorically mentioned in the recruitment notification itself that the maximum interview marks were 50 and the company reserves a right to fix minimum marks to qualify in the interview. In that regard, Mr. Gera, learned counsel submits that respondent/ company had already in the month of March 2023 decided that in order to strengthen the basis of assessment of communication skill, the shortlisted candidates for the interview were to obtain minimum of 50% marks out of total 50 marks for the interview i.e., 25 marks, for qualifying the interview.
W.P.(C) 4545/2024 Page 3 of 4This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2024 at 21:55:55
16. According to Mr. Gera, it was consolidation of these two set of marks, which would have entitled the petitioner to figure in the selection list.
17. He submits that the consolidated marks of 148.75, which the petitioner claims to have obtained, by itself, would not be relevant, since he had scored only 24.75 marks which is actually less than the eligibility criteria of 50% marks required to qualify the interview, apart from qualifying the online examination.
18. Be that as it may.
19. Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within four weeks from the date of service with an advance copy to learned counsel for the petitioner. Rejoinder, thereto if any, be filed within two weeks, thereafter, with an advance copy to learned counsel for the respondent.
20. List the matter again on 04.07.2024.
21. In the meanwhile, the selection process may go on in respect of EWS candidates, subject to the outcome of the present petition.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J MARCH 28, 2024/nd W.P.(C) 4545/2024 Page 4 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2024 at 21:55:55