ISRO Administrative Officer Post, Selection Not Arbitrary, Candidates Participated Without Any Challenge To Process, Can't Question Later; Delhi High Court Reiterates

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Petition filed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The petitioner had challenged the results finalized by the ISRO against the post of Administrative Officer

A division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Girish Kathpalia held that candidates can't challenge the recruitment process or results if they did not raise an objection before the selection process.

BACKGROUND

The Indian Space Research Organisation ('ISRO') (Respondent No.1) invited applications for two Administrative Officer positions under the SC/ST category. The selection process included a written test and an interview. The petitioner applied under the SC category. When the select list was out, the petitioner's name was not included. He claimed to have secured the highest marks. Challenging the appointment of Respondent No.3, who also participated in the selection, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals' Act, 1985 and sought his appointment.

The petitioner submitted that ISRO interviewed 5 candidates even though the general rule of law allowed only 3 and Respondent No.3 was chosen for the interview after giving him relaxation in marks in the written examination.

The Respondents submitted that the final selection process assigned 60 marks to the written test and 40 marks to the interview. The written test, which had a total of 124 marks, was adjusted to a maximum of 60. Candidates were required to score at least 50% in each section and an overall total of 60% in order to be eligible for selection, ranked by merit.

The Tribunal observed that the claims of bias against ISRO, suggesting they had already decided to appoint respondent No. 3, were unfounded because the selection board was led by an IAS officer. It further held that there was no substantial evidence to prove the allegations. The application was dismissed observing that the selection process was carried out meticulously by the officials of respondent Nos.1 & 2.

Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed a petition before the High Court challenging the order of the Tribunal.

Contentions by Petitioner:It was argued that the 'normalization' claimed by Respondent No 1 and 2 was fabricated and non-existent.

Claiming that respondent No. 3 did not achieve the minimum required marks to qualify for the written exam, the petitioner argued that the rules stated that relaxation for SC/ST candidates would only be applied after the recruitment process was complete, however, the relaxation was wrongly given to respondent No. 3, making him eligible for the interview. The petitioner also stated that no documents or approvals were provided to show that marks were relaxed for respondent No. 3 to allow him to take the interview.

Relying on the decision of Constitution Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana 1985 (4) SCC 417, he contended that five candidates could not be interviewed and the weightage of the interview could not be more than 12.2%. He asserted that it was not followed by Respondent no. 1 and 2 in the present case.

Contentions of the Respondents:

ISRO(Respondent no.1) submitted that the allegations were baseless and the selection process was fair. It was stated that the final selection process allocated 60 marks for the written test and 40 marks for the interview. The written test, scored out of 124 marks, was normalized with reference to a maximum of 60. The Candidates needed at least 50% in each part and a total of 60% to be considered for selection, ranked by merit.

Regarding the contention of the petitioner that 5 people were interviewed, ISRO submitted that the candidates were interviewed against 2 vacancies and not against only one.

Moreover, Respondent no. 3 averred that the Petitioner misrepresented the written exam score as being out of 100 marks, while the call letter from respondent No. 1 clearly mentioned 124 marks.

Findings of the Court:

The court perused the notification and the results of the written test. It was held that the Petitioner secured the maximum marks in the written examination and was eligible for the interview.

Stating that choosing more than three people for the interview could at times be done by the appointing authorities to recruit the best candidate, the court disapproved the contention of the petitioner that it was arbitrary. Only 3 candidates had secured the cut-off marks and therefore candidates next in the merit list were also interviewed and accordingly, normalisation of marks was done.

Referring to the criteria laid down in the advertisement notification, the court held that the candidates needed to score at least 50% in both the written test and interview and a total of 60% to be considered for selection. The petitioner scored 59.62 marks, while respondent No. 3 scored 64.85 marks.

Regarding the contention that the qualifying marks in the interview couldn't exceed 12.2%, the court held that the Petitioner did not challenge it before the recruitment process and thus can not sustain. Holding so, the Court cited the decision taken in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2017) 4 SCC 357 wherein the Apex Court held that if a candidate takes an exam without raising any objections regarding the process and then does not succeed, he can't later challenge it.

The Court also cited several other judgements including Amlan Jyoti Borooah [Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 627], Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar [Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 256], Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Others Vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344 etc., reiterating that after participating in the selection process without raising any questions, a candidate can't challenge it after the results.

Upholding the decision of the Tribunal, the court held that due procedure was followed while carrying out the selection process and the Petitioner could not raise a challenge after the finalisation of results.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: RAVI KUMAR Versus DEPARTMENT OF SPACE AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1071

Click here to download Judgement/Order