Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 08.04.2025
SARVESH AGRAWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC
Mr. Santosh Krishnan, Ms. Sonam Anand, Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal, Advocates for R-2.
Mr. Chirag Joshi, Advocate for R- 3.
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner has filed this application for early hearing of the writ petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, and
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with regard to recruitment by the National Green Tribunal [“the respondent”] for the post of P.A. (Stenographer Grade-C)/Court Master.
2. The respondent issued an advertisement on 17.04.2013 calling for recruitment to 20 posts of P.A. (Stenographer Grade-C)/Court Master, of which 50% each were to be filled by direct recruitment and promotion, respectively. The educational and other qualifications prescribed included the following: “Essential – Bachelor’s Degree from any recognized university. Desirable: Degree in Law from a recognized University.
2) Skill test Norms: Dictation: 10 mts @ 80 w.p.m. Transcription: 65 mts (Eng.); 75 mts (Hindi) (On manual typewriter); or 50 mts (Eng.); 65 mts (Hindi) (on computer).
3) Computer Training Course of at least 6 months duration from a recognized institution.” It is clear from the above that the post was open to stenographers both in Hindi and in English.
3. The petitioner was working as a Deposition Writer with the establishment of the District Court in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. He applied for the aforementioned post, relying upon his skills in stenography and Hindi.
4. The petitioner was called for a written skill test by a notice issued in August 2013 and participated in the skill test held on 08.09.2013.
5. The respondent declared the results of the skill test on 27.09.2013, by a notice on its website. Although the petitioner was called for an interview, he unfortunately missed appearing for the interview as the notice was admittedly posted on a new website of the respondent. The interviews were held on the said date, and ten candidates were selected.
6. The petitioner represented to the respondent on 05.10.2013 and 28.10.2013, pointing out the above circumstances which prevented his participation in the interview. The petitioner and other similarly placed candidates, who had missed the initial interview call, were interviewed in a second round, which was held on 10.01.2014.
7. On 26.08.2014, the respondent published a combined results of candidates for the said post, on the basis of the skill test held on 07/08.09.2013 and the personality interaction-cum-viva voce held on 13.09.2013 and 10.01.2014. The petitioner was placed on S.No. 2 of the reserved/waiting panel, having obtained 5.75 marks out of 10. Ten candidates were selected in terms of the vacancy position for direct recruitment. The marks obtained by them ranged from 6.00 to 8.90.
8. Approximately nine months thereafter, the petitioner addressed a representation dated 11.05.2015 to the respondent, noting that one of the selected candidates – Mr. Dilip Kumar (whose name appears at S.No. 4 in the results dated 26.08.2014) – had resigned. He sought appointment against the post vacated by Mr. Dilip Kumar, contending that he was “on the top of the reserved/waiting panel”.
9. The petitioner made a further representation on 25.09.2015, contending that the candidate appointed against the said vacancy was at S.No. 3 of the waiting list, whereas he was at S.No. 2. He also contended that, the post having been advertised both for English and Hindi Stenographers, 50% each of the posts ought to have been reserved for English and Hindi Stenographers, respectively. He alleged discrimination against Hindi stenographers in general, and himself in particular.
10. As these representations went unanswered, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for the following reliefs: “(i) to call for the records based on which the respondents have unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of the advertisement and proceeded to appoint most of the English Stenographers in an undue haste by deliberately denying a fair and equal opportunity to the Hindi Stenographers of showing their comparative merit before the Selection Committee.
(ii) issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the selection process relating to appointment to the posts of PA (Stenographer - Grade C)/ Court Master in the NOT in part i.e. from the stage of declaration of results (Annexure A-3) onwards for violation of the laid down procedure resulting in to denial of fair and equal opportunity to the Hindi Stenographers including petitioner.
(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of PA (Stenographer Grade -C)/Court Master on the establishment of National Green Tribunal forthwith against the post lying vacant.
(iv) to issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble
(v) Award costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”
11. The writ petition was dismissed, by order dated 26.05.2016, with the following observations:
proceeded to select an OBC candidate at Sr. No.3 from the reserved list, in his place. This Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the aforesaid procedure followed by the respondents.
6. The next submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents had discriminated against the Hindi Stenographers by not intimating them on time about the date of the interview. The aforesaid grievance does not survive once the petitioner had admittedly received a written intimation dated 21.12.2013 from the respondent No.2/NGT, calling upon him to participate in the interview on 10.01.2014 and he had duly participated in the process. No other argument has been addressed by the counsel for the petitioner to challenge the selection process adopted by the respondent No.2/NGT.”
12. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal (LPA 135/2018), which was disposed of by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 09.08.2018. Much of the petitioner’s arguments is now centred around the judgment of the Division Bench, relevant extracts whereof are reproduced below:
strange that once the respondent had decided to conduct the second interview, there was no reason for them to issue appointment letters to the candidates who had already been selected pursuant to the first interview held, to this Mr. Gogna has labored hard and also produced the record to contend that since some of the candidates did not receive the interview letters, the respondent acted in a fair and just manner and conducted the second interview and since the appellant and similarly situated persons did not qualify, thus the delay in conducting the interview cannot be faulted.
8. We are persuaded by the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that there would be no purpose of conducting the second round of interview when the selected candidates were already issued appointment letters without any rider that their appointment was subject to the second round of interview.
9. At this stage, we had asked the learned counsel for the appellant that the rights of the selected candidates would be affected if this Court was to decide the matter, to which learned counsel for the appellant submits that he was conscious of this fact and he had made an application even prior to the notice being issued in the writ petition to implead the selected candidates as parties. The learned Single Judge did not entertain the application.
10. Keeping the aforesaid background in mind, we are of the considered view that this matter requires consideration. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the impugned order dated 26.05.2016 is set aside. The matter would be listed before the learned Single Judge, when notice would be issued in the application seeking impleadment of the selected candidates of the first list and the interviewed candidates of the second list and upon hearing of all the parties, a fresh decision would be taken in the matter.
11. The parties to appear before the learned Single Judge on 20.09.2018.”1
13. Pursuant to this judgment, notice was issued in the impleadment application filed by the petitioner on 20.09.2018, at least as far as the successful candidates are concerned. The impleadment application was allowed by order dated 07.05.2019, whereby nine of the ten successful candidates (excluding Mr. Dilip Kumar, who had resigned) have been Emphasis supplied. impleaded as respondents No. 3 to 11. Out of these respondents, only respondent No. 3 is represented.
14. I have heard Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Santhosh Krishnan, learned counsel for the respondent NO. 2; and Mr. Chirag Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
15. The first objection taken by Mr. Krishnan is that the petition is barred by the principles of delay and laches, and estoppel. He points out that the petitioner participated in the second round of interviews held on 10.01.2014, and accepted the results declared on 26.08.2014. His representation dated 11.05.2015 sought appointment in terms of the said results. Even thereafter, he did not file the present writ petition for almost one year. The litigation, having taken the course narrated above, the writ petition has also been pending before this Court for nine years, during which time the appointed candidates have been in the service of the respondent.
16. Mr. Krishnan relies on the judgments of the Supreme Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N.[2] & State of J&K v. R.K. Zalpuri[3]. In RK Zalpuri, the Supreme Court underscored the consequences of inordinate delay in approaching the Court, emphasising that stale claims, devoid of justification, warrant outright rejection at the threshold.
17. In furtherance of his submission that the petitioner is estopped from belatedly questioning the selection process, having already participated in it and accepted the results, Mr. Krishnan relies on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dhananjay Malik & Ors. v. State of
(2015) 15 SCC 602 (hereinafter, “RK Zalpuri”). Uttaranchal & Ors.[4] and Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of J&K[5]. In Dhananjay Malik, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding as follows:
18. Mr. Upadhyay, however, submits that the entire process adopted by the respondent is tainted by irregularity, having held the first round of interviews on 30.09.2013, of which the candidates were not properly informed. The respondent issued appointment letters and the successful candidates were permitted to join service. The holding of the second round of interviews for the candidates who were not properly notified of the interview in the first round, according to Mr. Upadhyay, was an effort at whitewashing this error, and the candidates who appeared in the second round were only placed in the waiting list.
19. Having considered these submissions, I am of the view that Mr. (2008) 4 SCC 171 (hereinafter, “Dhananjay Malik”).
Krishnan’s preliminary objection must prevail. The petitioner does not just purport to his exert rights belatedly, but does so in the teeth of his own representation dated 11.05.2015. It is not contended anywhere that either the first result of the recruitment process declared on 27.09.2013 or the final combined result declared on 26.08.2014 was not publicly notified. Despite the fact that there is, as noticed by the Division Bench, some cause for concern about the whole process adopted by the respondent, such a grievance cannot be agitated by the present petitioner in a writ petition filed one and a half years after the result was declared. The petitioner accepted his position in the reserved/waiting panel, as evident from the contents of his representation dated 11.05.2015, reproduced below: “This is to bring to your kind notice that I being on the top of the reserved/waiting panel have not been offered appointment to the post of Stenographer Grade-C in the National Green Tribunal, despite the fact that a post is still lying vacant after the acceptance of resignation of one Mr. Dilip Kumar. As you are aware of the results were published on 25.08.2014 and thereafter, a considerable period of more than 8 months has already been lapsed. You are, therefore, requested to kindly look into the matter at the earliest.”7
20. It is clear from this representation that the petitioner sought appointment in place of Mr. Dilip Kumar, who had resigned, contending that he was at the top of the waiting list. The results dated 26.08.2014 show that Mr. Dilip Kumar was an Other Backward Classes [“OBC”] candidate, whereas the persons placed at S.No. 1 and 2 (including the petitioner) of the waiting list were General category candidates. The respondent, therefore, appointed the candidate at S.No. 3 of the waiting list, who belonged to the OBC category, to fill the vacancy caused by Mr. Dilip Kumar’s resignation. The position has been accepted by the petitioner also, as is evident from the observations of the Division Bench in paragraphs 5 and 6 of its judgment.
21. In the next representation submitted by the petitioner on 25.09.2015, the contention taken was that 50% of the posts ought to have been filled from amongst Hindi Stenographers and 50% from English stenographers. The writ petition also proceeds on a similar contention, as reflected in prayer (i). Mr. Upadhyay, however, does not press the submission that 50% each were required to be drawn from English and Hindi Stenographers, but accepts that a combined advertisement for a single post would have to result in assessment of all candidates, in accordance with their comparative merit. The results dated 26.08.2014 show that candidates both amongst English and Hindi stenographers (Hindi Stenographers being marked with roll numbers beginning with ‘H’) have been placed in a combined merit list. This contention, therefore, does not survive.
22. Even in the writ petition, I find that the petitioner’s averments pertain only to the two issues highlighted above, i.e., filling the vacancy arisen out of the resignation of Mr. Dilip Kumar, and discrimination between English and Hindi Stenographers. The grievance with regard to holding of two separate interviews has also been made in the context of the claim of discrimination. Grounds B, C, and E of the writ petition make this clear, and are reproduced below:
08.09.2013, the petitioner was orally informed by the NGT officials that the candidates qualifying the examination would be informed for further test/interview either by post or on the respective registered mobile number. xxxx xxxx xxxx
23. Even these grounds do not appear to be quite correct. It is evident even from the result of the first interview, annexed by the respondent to its counter affidavit, that five candidates for the post of P.A. (Stenographer Grade-C)/Court Master (Hindi) appeared for the interview, out of whom one was selected.
24. The contention with regard to irregularity in the process of selection on the ground of two interviews, has been highlighted in the order of the Division Bench. However, while remanding the matter, the Division Bench has made it clear that it has expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter. The fact that the petitioner had accepted the result declared on 26.08.2014 and sought appointment in terms of that result, to my mind, weighs against interference with the said result at the petitioner’s instance, particularly having regard to the fact that the writ petition was filed more than 18 months after the results were declared.
25. Mr. Krishnan also raises a submission that the prosecution of the writ petition has been lacking in diligence, with the petitioner having sought adjournment on the first three dates of hearing and having taken considerable time to serve notice upon the successful candidates after the order of remand. As I have, in any event, come to the conclusion that relief cannot be granted to the petitioner in these facts, I do not consider it necessary to dilate upon this issue further.
26. In view of the above, I am of the view that interference with the selection process at this stage is unjustified. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.