'Candidates Must Be Given Appropriate And Correct Reasons Behind Their Rejection To Any Post', Delhi High Court
A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that while rejecting the appointment of the Petitioner, the Respondents should have conveyed the correct reason i.e., falling in the last priority in the Priority List instead of informing him that he had failed in the written examination. It was observed that such litigations burden the candidates as well as the courts and can be avoided if the Authorities are careful. Accordingly, the Bench advised the Respondents to be careful in future to save the candidates who may not be able to afford litigation expenses considering their meagre income.
Background:
A Notification was issued on 28.10.2017 and a recruitment rally was held at 3 EME Centre, Bhopal, in January 2018. The Petitioner participated in the Rally and went through the Selection Process as was required. The Selection Process lasted a month and later the Petitioner was informed that he was not selected owing to having failed in the written examination. He was also told that his name did not exist in the merit list of the available vacancies for his State.
Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Counsel for the Petitioner claimed that it was incorrect to hold that the Petitioner had failed in the exams. He informed the Court of the RTI Application filed by the Petitioner as per which the Petitioner had scored 100 out of 100 marks in the physical fitness test and 66 marks out of 100 in the written test. Moreover, since the Petitioner's father was an ex-serviceman, he was also awarded a Bonus of 20 marks.
It was further mentioned in the Reply to the Application that the cut-off marks for 200 were 176 which the Petitioner had exceeded. The Counsel while apprising the Court of the same stated that it was untrue that the Petitioner had failed in the Written Examinations as he had not only met the cut-off score but had secured more marks.
Additionally, the Petitioner mentioned another RTI Application filed by the Petitioner. In its reply, it was admitted by the Respondents that the rally was conducted for All India All Caste [AIAC] Vacancies and candidates from any region in India could participate in it. He asserted that there was no mention of a fixed vacancy as per the States that the candidates belonged to. Therefore, the rejection based on not being in the merit list due to having no available vacancies for the Petitioner's State was not justified, the Counsel added.
The Counsel prayed that the Petitioner be appointed to the post of Soldier (GD).
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Rally was basically meant for the sons of war widow/widows/ex-servicemen/servicemen and own brothers of service/Ex-servicemen. He stated that the candidates belonging to the EME Centre were intended to be prioritised.
The Counsel mentioned the five priorities as;
a. Priority 1 (Own Regt/Corps) (Battle Casaulty/Liberalized Family Pension)
b. Priority II (Own Regt/Corps) (Disability Pensioners/Special Family Pensioners)
c. Priority III (Own Regt/Corps) (Serving/Ex serviceman)
d. Priority IV (Other Regt/Corps) (Battle Casuality/Liberlised Family Pension)
e. Priority V (Other Regt) (Disability Pensioners/Special Family Pensioners)
The Counsel stated that the Petitioner could not be appointed because 'priority' was to be considered over the total marks. It was stated that the Petitioner falling in Priority 'V', being the son the an ex-serviceman who belonged to the Regiments of Guards and not the EME could thus not be selected for the recruitment to the post.
He stated further that the assessment was completely automated and that the result was compiled using the Evaluation, Decoding, Preparation of Merit, and Allotment of Arms and Services [e-DMASS] Software. Therefore, the Respondents could not have changed the results on their own, the Counsel stated.
Findings of the Court:
The Court expressed disappointment over the fact that the Petitioner was not informed of the actual reasons behind not being appointed and instead being told that he had failed in the written examinations. The Court said that there would have been no reasons for him to approach the Court if he was informed well in time of the reasons of his rejection to the Post.
The Court accepted the contention of the Respondent that the assessment of marks and eligibility was fully automated and therefore the Respondents could not have tampered with it. It held that as per the recruitment notification, the recruitment was to be made based on the Priority list mentioned above. Since the Petitioner fell in the last priority in the priority list, he could not be appointed to the Post as was claimed by him, the Court added.
Observing that no relief could be granted to the Petitioner, the Court also asked the Respondents to convey to the candidates, the appropriate reasons behind rejection, so that their time is saved.
Case Title: SANDEEP KUMAR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Ajit Kakkar, Adv.
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, SPC. Major Anish Muralidhar, Army