Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. In view of the re-calculation the second revised list, on the basis of written examination, was published on 30th September, 2015. The revised list was restricted to five times the number of vacancies. Post re-valuation, 2382 candidates were found qualified. 247 candidates, who were earlier disqualified and had secured lower ranks, had moved up, and 318 candidates, who had earlier qualified the written test, were found disqualified and had moved down. 318 candidates, therefore, were treated as disqualified despite having appeared in the trade and typing test. Of these 318 candidates, 145 candidates, including the petitioners, belonged to the Scheduled Caste category. On the basis of the re-valuation, the revised cut-off marks in the written test was increased from 59 to 63 marks in the Scheduled Caste category. Nitin Kumar, Ashish Kumar, and Avinash Kumar, upon re-valuation, had secured 62 marks, whereas the cut-off was 63 and therefore the petitioners had not made it to the cut off list. After conducting the trade and typing tests and on the basis of marks obtained by the qualified candidates, a revised selection list was published. As per the said list, for 71 open vacancies in the Scheduled Castes category, 51 candidates were selected. The unfilled vacancies, 20 in number, were carried forward.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4794/2012, Pallav Mongia versus Registrar General, Delhi High Court and Another and Division Bench decision of this Court in Gunjan Sinha Jain and others versus Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, 188 (2012) DLT 627 (DB). In Gunjan Sinha Jain (supra), the Delhi High Court held that legitimately the top candidates after re-valuation should be declared as having qualified even if there was an earlier merit list of top candidates. However, in the said case, it was observed that the requirement and stipulation relating to the number of candidates should be moderated keeping in view the requirements of justice, fairness, and equity. In this manner, those who were declared qualified would retain their declared status even if they were lower down and had not qualified after re-valuation. The Court declared that the final number of qualified candidates may, therefore, exceed the figure, but this should be accepted. However, the case of Pallav Mongia (supra) is slightly different. The Supreme Court noticed that the candidates in the first eligible list had not been excluded from the list of eligible candidates for appearing in the main examination, even if the candidate had come down in rank in view of deletion of some question or change in the model answer key. In these circumstances, it was directed that other candidates, who pursuant to re-valuation, had secured more marks than the last candidate should be allowed to appear in the main examination vide revised list. These candidates would be treated as qualified and included in the list. The decision in Pallav Mongia (supra) has no relevance to the present case. In Sumit Kumar versus High Court of Delhi and Another, W.P. (C) No. 3453/2016, decided on 9th May, 2016, after referring to these two decisions, it was left to the High Court Administration to adopt an appropriate and proper method after deleting certain questions and issue of the corrigendum. However, the decisions passed in Pallav Mongia (supra) and Gunjan Sinha Jain (supra) would be kept in mind.