Delhi High Court - Orders
Ravi Kumar vs Ministry Of Hrd & Ors on 9 January, 2019
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Vipin Sanghi, A. K. Chawla
$~20.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8453/2018 & C.M. No. 32504/2018
RAVI KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: petitioner in person.
versus
MINISTRY OF HRD & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anil Srivastava, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC for R-
3/HRD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
ORDER
% 09.01.2019
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 25.07.2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 2205/2015. The petitioner's said Original Application has been rejected by the Tribunal. The petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that he had not been selected for the post of Assistant Secretary, advertised by the respondent Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) vide an advertisement notice dated 08.02.2014, in response whereto he had made his application. There were four vacancies indicated for the said post. Three of the posts were reserved, namely one for the SC category candidates and two for the OBC category candidates. One post was unreserved. The petitioner belongs to the SC category.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the advertisement merely indicated that the management reserves the right to shortlist the candidates on merits, experience, written and/ or skill test. It did not indicate that any interview would be conducted, much less did it indicate the weightage that would be accorded to the interview process. Without making a prior disclosure, the respondent decided, behind the petitioner's back, to accord 80 per cent weightage to the written test and 20 per cent to the interview.
3. The petitioner participated in the written examination and secured 75 out of 100 marks. The marks secured by the petitioner were the highest amongst the SC category candidates, and third highest overall. The petitioner submits that one of the desirable qualifications prescribed in the advertisement for the said post was an MBA qualification from a recognised in public administration/ management, which he possessed from IIM Kozhikode. The petitioner was called for interview along with other candidates. He was awarded 2 out of 20 marks in the interview process. The case of the petitioner is that by deliberately awarding 2 out of 20 marks to the petitioner in the interview, he was ousted.
4. The petitioner submits that the interview committee had, before it, the particulars of the candidates, i.e. their names/ identity; the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination, and; the reduced marks by application of 80 per cent weightage. Thus, the interview committee, by awarding the marks during the interview, were in a position to actually determine as to which of the candidates would stand selected.
5. Since respondent No. 4 - Ram Veer was appointed as Assistant Secretary against the reserved vacancy, he impleaded respondent No.4 as a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. Respondent No.4 secured lesser marks in the written test, but on account of higher marks in the interview, he was selected.
6. The Tribunal rejected the Original Application by observing that the respondent was entitled to adopt the normalisation process i.e. of fixing 80 per cent weightage for the written test, and 20 per cent for the interview. On that premise the Original Application was rejected.
7. Vide order dated 28.11.2018 passed in the present proceedings, we directed the respondents to produce the original record in relation to the selection process. The same has been produced before us and we have perused the same. The said record shows that before the interview committee consisting of 4 officers, they had a complete tabulation in respect of each of the candidates which indicated, inter alia, their names; the category to which they belonged i.e. General category, SC category or OBC category; the marks obtained by them in the descriptive written test out of 100; and; the marks computed with 80 per cent weightage for the written test. This form was pre-printed when placed before the interview board, and the interview board proceeded to award the marks in the interview out of 20, i.e. with 20 per cent weightage.
8. This clearly shows that the interview board was well aware as to which of the candidates would stand selected in different categories, once they award the marks for the interview. This process, in our view, was completely erroneous and vitiated the interview process. The marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination - either out of 100, or with 80 per cent weightage, could not have been placed before the interview board since, doing so, made the interview process open to manipulation.
9. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the interview board had no malice against any candidate, much less the petitioner, is neither her not there. The members of the interview board may not have malice towards any particular candidate. However, having a preference for certain candidate(s) is sufficient to result in manipulation of the result. There is gross discrepancy in the marks obtained in the written test and the interview. Similarly, there is abnormal discrepancy in the marks obtained in the written test and the interview. The mark sheet prepared by the interview board, after awarding of marks for the interview, shows that candidates who secured much less marks than the petitioner in the written examination have been selected on account of award of very high marks in the interview process. This raises a serious doubt in our mind with regard to the credibility of the interview process. Accordingly, we allow the petition and quash the final result published by the respondent qua the petitioner and respondent No.4, both of whom belong to the SC category. We, however, refrain from interfering with the remaining result, since no other candidate appear to have assailed the same and the selected candidates in the General and OBC category are not before us.
10. We direct that the interview process should be undertaken qua the petitioner and respondent No.4 afresh with the constitution of a completely fresh interview board. Before the interview board, the marks obtained in the written examination, either by the petitioner or by respondent No.4, either out of 100, or with 80 per cent weightage, should not be disclosed. The interview board should hold the interview and award marks independently without, in any manner, being influenced by any other consideration. On the basis of the marks awarded, the fresh result be compiled in respect of the one post of Assistant Secretary, which is reserved for the SC category candidates. In case, the petitioner is found to be successful, he shall be offered the said post. However, it shall be open to the respondents to adjust respondent No.4 against any other post, if the same is available or created. In that eventuality, the petitioner shall be entitled to notional seniority from the date when respondent No.4 was appointed to the post of Assistant Secretary. However, he shall not be entitled to any back wages.
11. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms with costs quantified at Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the petitioner. The costs be paid within four weeks.
VIPIN SANGHI, J A. K. CHAWLA, J JANUARY 09, 2019 N.Khanna