Full Text
Translation output
..-
..
% 15.09.2011
Present: Mr.Barish Pandey, Adv. for the Appellant.
Mr.Ravinder Aggarwal, Adv. for Respondent-DOL
Mr.Parag P. Tripathi, ASG with Mr.Rajeev Saxena and
·Mr.Rajat Mittal, Advs. for the Respondent.
+ CM No.17192/2011
·'· ...
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
CMNos. 17191 & 17193/2011
#33
These are applications for condonation of delay of 28 days m preferring the appeal and 14 days in re-filing the appeal.
·we have heard Mr.Harish Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Ravinder Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Union of India and Mr.Parag
~ P. Tripathi, the lemned Additional Solicitor General along with Mr.Rajiv
Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents fairly stated that they have no objection for condonation of delay and, accordingly, the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal stands condoned.
The applications are, accordingly, disposed of.
LPA No. 749/2011 page 1 of4
2011:DHC:16824-DB
LPA No.749/2011 and CM No.17190/2011 (Stay)
,~
As we have condoned the delay in preferring the appeal, we are inclined to take up the appeal for admi'ssion.
The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 5th May, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 8272/2010 wh~reby the learned Single Judge has declined to grant any relief to the petitioner on the foundation that the respondent No.2 was entitled under law to fix the cut-offmarks.
Be it noted, in a similar situation, the learned Single Judge in WP (C)
No. 7007/2007 titled Yogesh Yadav v. Union of India and another had expressed the same view by order dated 24th May, 2011. Yogesh Yadav had preferred an appeal forming the subject matter ofLPA No.561/2011 wherein i- the Division Bench had expressed the view as follows:-
"In the case at hand, as we perceive, the intention of the
Commission was to get more meritorious candidates.
There has been no change of norm or procedure. No mandate was fixed that a candidate should secure minimum marks in the interview. Obtaining of 65%. marks was thought as a guideline for selecting the candidate from the OBC category. The objective is to have the best hands in the field of law. According to us, fixation of such marks is legitimate and gives a demarcating choice to the employer. It has to be borne in mind that the requirement of the job in a Competition
Commission demands a well structured selection process.
LPA No. 749/2011 page 2 of4
Such a selection would advance the cause of efficiency.
Thus scrutinized, we do not perceive any error in the fixation of marks at 65%·by the Commission which has been uniformly applied. The said action of the
Commission cannot be treated to be illegal, irrational or illegitimate."
In our considered opinion, the decision rendered in LPA No.561/2011
\-.i_ squarely applies to the case at hand. Be it noted, learned counsel for the appellant is trying to distinguish the said decision on two counts, namely, the
Competition Commission could not have· changed the criteria without the prior sanction of the Union of India, and secondly, the decision in P. V.
Indiresan & Ors. v. Union ofIndia, (2009) 7 SCC 300 was not considered by the Division Bench while deciding the LPA.
In our considered opinion, as far as the first ground is concerned, the advertisement was issued by the Competition Commission and this Court has dealt with the facet how the Competition Commission desires to have more meritorious candidates. The notification, in our considered opinion, is
• not applicable as the rules of the game had not been changed. Right to appoint has a different facet. As far as the decision in P. V. Indiresan
(supra) is concerned, that is not even remotely applicable to the lis in question.
LPA No. 749/2011 page 3 of4·
\ '
_,_
'
_ In· view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not find any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
SEPTEMBER 15,2011 kapil
LPA No. 749/2011
~ -·)!L-.
SANJIV KHANNA, J page 4 of4
..
% 15.09.2011
Present: Mr.Barish Pandey, Adv. for the Appellant.
Mr.Ravinder Aggarwal, Adv. for Respondent-DOL
Mr.Parag P. Tripathi, ASG with Mr.Rajeev Saxena and
·Mr.Rajat Mittal, Advs. for the Respondent.
+ CM No.17192/2011
·'· ...
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
CMNos. 17191 & 17193/2011
#33
These are applications for condonation of delay of 28 days m preferring the appeal and 14 days in re-filing the appeal.
·we have heard Mr.Harish Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Ravinder Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Union of India and Mr.Parag
~ P. Tripathi, the lemned Additional Solicitor General along with Mr.Rajiv
Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents fairly stated that they have no objection for condonation of delay and, accordingly, the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal stands condoned.
The applications are, accordingly, disposed of.
LPA No. 749/2011 page 1 of4
2011:DHC:16824-DB
LPA No.749/2011 and CM No.17190/2011 (Stay)
,~
As we have condoned the delay in preferring the appeal, we are inclined to take up the appeal for admi'ssion.
The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 5th May, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 8272/2010 wh~reby the learned Single Judge has declined to grant any relief to the petitioner on the foundation that the respondent No.2 was entitled under law to fix the cut-offmarks.
Be it noted, in a similar situation, the learned Single Judge in WP (C)
No. 7007/2007 titled Yogesh Yadav v. Union of India and another had expressed the same view by order dated 24th May, 2011. Yogesh Yadav had preferred an appeal forming the subject matter ofLPA No.561/2011 wherein i- the Division Bench had expressed the view as follows:-
"In the case at hand, as we perceive, the intention of the
Commission was to get more meritorious candidates.
There has been no change of norm or procedure. No mandate was fixed that a candidate should secure minimum marks in the interview. Obtaining of 65%. marks was thought as a guideline for selecting the candidate from the OBC category. The objective is to have the best hands in the field of law. According to us, fixation of such marks is legitimate and gives a demarcating choice to the employer. It has to be borne in mind that the requirement of the job in a Competition
Commission demands a well structured selection process.
LPA No. 749/2011 page 2 of4
Such a selection would advance the cause of efficiency.
Thus scrutinized, we do not perceive any error in the fixation of marks at 65%·by the Commission which has been uniformly applied. The said action of the
Commission cannot be treated to be illegal, irrational or illegitimate."
In our considered opinion, the decision rendered in LPA No.561/2011
\-.i_ squarely applies to the case at hand. Be it noted, learned counsel for the appellant is trying to distinguish the said decision on two counts, namely, the
Competition Commission could not have· changed the criteria without the prior sanction of the Union of India, and secondly, the decision in P. V.
Indiresan & Ors. v. Union ofIndia, (2009) 7 SCC 300 was not considered by the Division Bench while deciding the LPA.
In our considered opinion, as far as the first ground is concerned, the advertisement was issued by the Competition Commission and this Court has dealt with the facet how the Competition Commission desires to have more meritorious candidates. The notification, in our considered opinion, is
• not applicable as the rules of the game had not been changed. Right to appoint has a different facet. As far as the decision in P. V. Indiresan
(supra) is concerned, that is not even remotely applicable to the lis in question.
LPA No. 749/2011 page 3 of4·
\ '
_,_
'
_ In· view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not find any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
SEPTEMBER 15,2011 kapil
LPA No. 749/2011
~ -·)!L-.
SANJIV KHANNA, J page 4 of4
JUDGMENT