Delhi High Court
Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors vs Gajraj Singh on 6 December, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Siddharth Mridul
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 06.12.2012
+ W.P.(C) 45/2010
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ... Petitioner
versus
GAJRAJ SINGH ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms Latika Chaudhary for Mrs Avnish Ahlawat
For the Respondent : Mr Anil Singal
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 2189/2008, whereby the respondent's said Original Application has been allowed.
2. The respondent had contended before the Tribunal that the written test, which was conducted for the post of Head Constable, comprised of three questions which ought not to have been considered for the purpose WP(C) 45/2010 Page 1 of 5 of marking. It was contended that question No. 53 was marked incorrectly inasmuch as the Answer Key was wrong. In fact, it was contended that the question itself was not correct. Insofar as question Nos. 68 and 79 are concerned, the contention was that they were outside the syllabus.
3. The petitioner had obtained 124 marks in the said written test. It is also an admitted position that the last person, who was appointed to the post of Head Constable, had obtained 125 marks in the said written test. The Tribunal agreed with the contention of the respondent that question No. 53 was incorrect and consequently, awarded one mark to the respondent, thereby taking his total marks to 125.
4. The Tribunal has also directed that because of the fact that the respondent would get 125 marks in the manner indicated by the Tribunal, he would be entitled to be selected for the post of Head Constable. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take note of the fact that there were 191 candidates who had obtained 124 marks and they may also have had to be given one mark if the logic of the Tribunal was to be accepted. In other words, there WP(C) 45/2010 Page 2 of 5 could be an additional 191 candidates who could have obtained 1 mark. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that even amongst the persons who had obtained 125 marks, who were 105 in number in General Category, only 34 were enlisted because they were the senior most and those were the number of vacancies available. Therefore, merely because the petitioner would get 125 marks in the manner suggested by the Tribunal, did not mean that the petitioner would automatically be selected for the post of Head Constable.
5. She also submitted that the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that just by adding one more mark the respondent would not be entitled to the post of Head Constable automatically. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the process of selection and promotion to the rank of Head Constable is complete only after the person, who is brought in list A, successfully completes the lower school course and then his name is brought in list B and thereafter promotion is made as per vacancies. This aspect of the matter has also been lost sight of by the Tribunal inasmuch as the Tribunal directed that the petitioner be promoted to the post of Head Constable merely because he would get 125 marks in the manner suggested by the Tribunal.
WP(C) 45/2010 Page 3 of 5
6. We are not in agreement with the manner in which the Tribunal has dealt with this matter. The Tribunal ought not to have granted 1 mark to the respondent ignoring the other 191 candidates who had obtained 124 marks. This is apart from the fact that the Tribunal is not an expert body and was not in a position to determine as to whether question No. 53 was correct or incorrect and as to whether question Nos.68 and 79 were outside the syllabus or not. That should have been referred to an expert body, if at all.
7. As such, The Tribunal's order cannot stand. The petitioner has taken the plea that only 34 of the senior most constables, out of the 105 who had obtained 125 marks in the General Category, had been promoted to the post of Head Constable. But, as this plea had not been taken before the Tribunal, it would only be proper if the Tribunal examines this aspect of the matter also. Because if it were so, then even the grant of an additional 1 mark would not be of any use to the respondent as he was, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, not amongst the 34 senior-most constables.
WP(C) 45/2010 Page 4 of 5
8. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for consideration afresh enabling the petitioner to place an additional affidavit with regard to the status of the 105 candidates in the General Category who had also obtained 125 marks in the test conducted in 2007. The matter shall be placed before the Tribunal, in the first instance, on 07.01.2013.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J DECEMBER 06, 2012 SR WP(C) 45/2010 Page 5 of 5