Ajit Chauhan v. High Court of Delhi

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.2 Delhi High Court to forward the application of the Petitioner to Respondent No.l GNCTD considering him to be eligible to appear in Part II examination of the Common Assistant Accounts Officer (Civil) Examination, 2021;

(iv) Pass any other or such further orders which this Hon'ble Court me deed fit and proper.”

13. It was submitted in W.P.(C) 7003/2021, that the CAAO Examination is a composite process in two parts, and once a candidate qualifies Part I, his eligibility for Part II should be preserved, given that examination cycles are not always conducted on an annual basis and promotions during this interval are part of regular administrative progressions. It is also highlighted that the examination is a precondition for promotion to posts like Administrative Officer (Accounts) and Assistant Accounts Officer, which are Selection/Group A and B Gazetted posts within the Accounts Cadre of the High Court establishment.

14. Subsequently, petitioners in both the petitions, Ajit Chauhan and Vikas were permitted to appear in the 2021 Part II examination pursuant to interim directions passed in order dated 26.07.2021 in W.P.(C) 11634/2019 and order dated 26.07.2021 in W.P.(C) 7003/2021, which were passed by this Court.

15. Ajit Chauhan was successful in the said examination. Vikas, however, did not qualify in one of the three subjects of the 2021 Part II examination. Thereafter, he sought to appear in the 2024 cycle of the Part II examination, but his candidature was once again rejected on the ground that he was not in Pay Level 7 as on 01.04.2024, owing to his continued placement in a higher pay scale. Aggrieved by the repeated disqualification on similar grounds, he filed CM APPL. 127/2025 in W.P.(C) 7003/2021. This Court vide order dated 07.01.2025, permitted him to appear in the 2024 Part II examination as an interim measure, subject to the result being kept in a sealed cover, pending final adjudication of the petition.

16. The petitioners’ cases, though arising from different origins, wherein one is seeking equitable protection from disqualification arising from delay-induced promotion, and the other is challenging the disqualification along with the legality of the pay level eligibility criterion itself, does establish that they are intrinsically linked by the common grievance that the interpretation and application of Regulation 4(ii) may adversely affect candidates who had qualified Part I in a prior cycle but whose status subsequently changed in terms of pay.

17. The facts thus present an issue of continuing significance, i.e., whether Regulation 4(ii), which prescribes the eligibility of a candidate based on pay level as of 1st April of the exam year, can be rigidly applied to candidates who, through no fault of their own, were promoted after qualifying Part I but before the delayed conduct of Part

18. For the sake of convenience, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant Regulations from the GNCTD (Common AAO Examination) Regulations, 2017: “4. ELIGIBILITY FOR APPEARING IN THE EXAMINATION:

(ii) All Group ‘C’ & ‘B’ Non-Gazetted employees of Delhi

High Court and District & Session Courts, equivalent to Subordinate Services of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi as defined in Sub-Clause (f) of Clause 2 above, are eligible to appear in the Examination provided they are not more than 53 years of age and have rendered at least three years of regular service in the said grade as on the first day of April of the year for which the examination is to be held.

6. RELAXATION IN THE CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY: All the conditions of eligibility of the candidates to take up the examination has been laid down in Clause 4 & 5 above. The Administrative Departments of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Delhi High Court and District & Session Courts should scrutinize the eligibility conditions with reference to the regulations laid down and must ensure that all candidates recommended by them, for appearing in the Assistant Accounts Officer Examination, satisfy all the above conditions of eligibility. No request for relaxation will be entertained by the Government.”

9. RESULTS/PASS MARKS:

(i) A candidate who has qualified in all the four (4) papers of

Part I and three (3) papers of Part II examination will be declared as passed and will be eligible for promotion as Assistant Accounts Officer. Such eligibility for promotion is further subject to availability of posts and fulfillment of other conditions, if any. In order to pass the Examination a candidate should secure 40% marks in each paper and an aggregate of 45% overall.

(ii) However, there shall be relaxation of marks up to 5 per cent in each individual paper for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes on the lines of existing provisions in the office of Controller General of Accounts, Government of India. This relaxation will be admissible for evaluating both the pass marks and aggregate required under sub-clause (i) as well as marks for exemption under clause- 10.

19. At this stage, we find it pertinent to summarise the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 11634/2019 (Ajit Chauhan)

20. We have heard Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, who submitted that the eligibility of the petitioner to appear in Part II of the CAAO Examination must be assessed with reference to his status as on the date of application for Part I, i.e., when he was in Pay Level 7. It was argued that the examination is inherently composite and conducted in two stages, which are Part I and Part II, and that once a candidate has qualified Part I, he should not be rendered ineligible for Part II of the examination merely due to administrative delays, particularly where there is no fault attributable to the candidate.

21. The petitioner placed reliance on the delay between the notification dated 04.09.2017 and the actual conduct of Part I in December 2018, along with the result being declared on 27.05.2019. It was submitted that the delay in scheduling Part II, which was notified only on 15.06.2021, was wholly attributable to the respondent authorities, and during this time, the petitioner was promoted to Pay Level 8 in the regular course of service. Consequently, it was urged that the petitioner’s ineligibility due to the higher pay scale cannot be used to his detriment.

22. It is further submitted that the respondents’ interpretation effectively penalises employees for promotions that occurred only because of delays in exam scheduling, thereby frustrating the purpose of the CAAO Examination itself. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 7003/2021 (Vikas):

23. We have heard Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who adopted the same foundational arguments as raised in W.P.(C) 11634/2019, and further challenged the rejection order dated 09.12.2024.

24. It is further submitted that the CAAO Examination is a qualifying examination conducted in two parts. Regulation 9 clearly provides that a candidate can appear in Part II only upon clearing Part I or being exempt under Regulation 10. Hence, Part II is inherently a continuation of Part I, and eligibility for Part II must be determined based on the status at the time of qualifying Part I.

25. It was urged that the administrative delay in conducting the Part II examination, despite the aforementioned judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 3660/2015 to hold the exam annually, is what gave rise to the current predicament. The delay led to a change in the petitioner’s pay level, thereby creating a disqualification not attributable to any fault of the petitioner.

26. A further reliance was placed upon the equivalence in pay-level nomenclature between posts in the Delhi High Court and those in the DASS cadre. It was contended that the petitioner’s post of Senior Judicial Assistant in Pay Level 8 is equivalent to Grade II officers of the DASS cadre, and thus squarely fits within the eligibility class intended under the Regulations. It was further pointed out that the respondents have not disputed this equivalence in any of their affidavits or responses before this Court.

27. It was submitted that the application of Regulation 4(ii) in this context has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved and effectively bars qualified candidates from further progression based solely on administrative lapses in scheduling. Submissions on behalf of the respondent GNCTD (in both petitions):

28. We have heard Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned Standing Counsel appearing for GNCTD, who submitted that the eligibility conditions for appearing in the CAAO Examination are clearly laid down in Regulation 4(ii), which requires a candidate to be in Pay Level 7 as on 1st April of the relevant year. It was emphasised that Regulation 6 explicitly mandates strict scrutiny of eligibility conditions and bars any relaxation.

29. It was argued that the examination serves the purpose of providing promotional avenues to eligible employees of subordinate services carrying pay scales up to Level 7. Any relaxation or exception for employees who have since been promoted would be contrary to the intent of the regulatory scheme. The respondent submitted that permitting such employees to appear in Part II would create an anomalous situation where already-promoted staff would reenter the pool of those still awaiting first-level advancement.

30. The learned counsel further submitted that the examination’s regulatory structure was approved in consultation with the Law Department of GNCTD and is uniformly applied to all departments, including judicial establishments. The respondents relied on the Corrigendum dated 06.07.2017, which clarified that Clause 2(d) applies to employees of the Delhi High Court for the purpose of equivalence.

31. On the issue of delay, it was submitted that administrative constraints and the size of the examination process may have contributed to scheduling challenges. It was further submitted that considerable time was required to identify suitable expert body capable of maintaining the strict confidentiality necessary for conducting the examination. Therefore, there was never a violation of the judgment dated 27.04.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 3660/2015.

32. It was, therefore, submitted that the petitioners' grievances arise not from any illegality in the Regulations, but from their individual service progressions, and as such, both writ petitions are devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

33. Upon careful consideration of the arguments advanced by the parties and the documents placed on record, the following emerges: i. The petitioners in both W.P.(C) 11634/2019 and W.P.(C) 7003/2021 had qualified Part I of the Common Assistant Accounts Officer (Civil) Examination pursuant to the Notification dated 04.09.2017. The said examination was conducted in December 2018 and the results were declared on 27.05.2019. Thereafter, no schedule was announced for the conduct of Part II for a considerable period. ii. During this intervening period, both petitioners were promoted to higher pay scales in the ordinary course of service progression. Ajit Chauhan was promoted to Pay Level 8 w.e.f. 01.10.2019, and Vikas to Pay Level 8 on 01.10.2019 as well, and later to Level 10 by virtue of non-functional upgradation. It is not in dispute that these promotions occurred well before the GNCTD issued the Notification dated 15.06.2021 for the conduct of Part II, which stipulated that candidates must be in Pay Level 7 as on 01.04.2021. iii. It is equally undisputed that the delay in scheduling Part II was not attributable to either petitioner. In fact, this Court had earlier directed in W.P.(C) 3660/2015 that the CAAO Examination be conducted annually. Despite such direction, there was a lapse of several years between the conduct of Part I and the issuance of notification for Part

II. The respondents, in their submissions, have not denied the delay, but sought to justify it on administrative grounds.

34. In this backdrop, the principal issue for consideration is whether the petitioners can be disqualified from appearing in Part II on the ground that they no longer fulfil the pay-level condition under Regulation 4(ii), when their change in status was solely due to passage of time and progression in service, during a period when the authorities failed to timely conduct the examination.

35. The arguments advanced by the petitioners, particularly in W.P.(C) 7003/2021, draw attention to the composite structure of the examination and the fact that eligibility for Part II is premised on having cleared Part I, as provided under Regulation 9. In such circumstances, where the examination is inherently sequential and the delay between the two parts is unexplained or inadequately justified, disqualifying candidates on the basis of intervening promotions would amount to penalising them for circumstances beyond their control.

36. Per contra, the respondents have placed reliance on the mandatory language of Regulation 4(ii) and the strict scrutiny requirement under Regulation 6. While these provisions must undoubtedly be given their due weight, they cannot be applied in isolation or to the exclusion of context, especially when the very delay that altered the petitioners' eligibility status is acknowledged to be administrative and not attributable to the petitioners.

37. Before proceeding further, it is also necessary to note that the prayer clause (i) in W.P.(C) 7003/2021, which sought a declaration that the examination scheme as notified is ultra vires and unconstitutional, was not pressed during the course of arguments. Accordingly, we do not consider it necessary to examine or render any finding on that aspect.

38. It is a settled principle of law that that no party should suffer adverse consequences due to administrative inaction or delay, particularly when they are not at fault. Where a statutory process is delayed by the authorities themselves, and the resulting disqualification stems solely from such delay, judicial interference is warranted to prevent manifest injustice. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naushad Anwar v. State of Bihar[4], wherein the Court has observed as under:

transparency especially when the method by which inter se merit of candidates was determined is neither stipulated in the Rules nor any guidelines issued for the Selection Committee to follow have been placed before us.”

39. We are also of the considered view that, for the purpose of determining eligibility, the date of application should be treated as the relevant date for reckoning qualification. In this regard, reliance was placed on Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)5, wherein the following was observed:

12. In U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana [(1994) 2 SCC 723: 1994 SCC (L&S) 742: (1994) 27 ATC 101], this Court, after considering a large number of its earlier judgments, held that eligibility conditions should be examined as on the last date for receipt of applications by the Commission. That too was a case where the result of a candidate was declared subsequent to the last date of submission of the applications. This Court held that as the result does not relate back to the date of examination and eligibility of the candidate is to be considered on the last date of submission of applications, therefore, a candidate, whose result has not been declared up to the last date of submission of applications, would not be eligible.

16. In Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekher [1993 Supp (2) SCC 611: 1993 SCC (L&S) 857: (1993) 24 ATC 798] [hereinafter referred to as Ashok Kumar (1993)], the majority view was as under: (SCC pp. 616-17, para 15)

by their selection on the basis of their comparative merits, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talents available. It was certainly in the public interest that the interview was made as broad based as was possible on the basis of qualification. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge was thus based on sound principle with reference to comparatively superior merits. It was in the public interest that better candidates who were fully qualified on the dates of selection were not rejected, notwithstanding that the results of the examination in which they had appeared had been delayed for no fault of theirs. The appellants were fully qualified on the dates of the interview and taking into account the generally followed principle of Rule 37 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, we are of opinion that the technical view adopted by the learned Judges of the Division Bench was incorrect….” (emphasis supplied) However, the opinion of R.M. Sahai, J. had been that these 33 persons could not have been allowed to appear for the interview as they did not possess the requisite eligibility/qualification on the last date of submission of applications.”

40. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds that the petitioners, having qualified Part I of the CAAO Examination in accordance with the applicable rules and being in Pay Level 7 at the relevant time, could not have anticipated that a prolonged delay in the conduct of Part II, which is wholly attributable to administrative reasons, would result in their ineligibility. Their subsequent promotions were in the ordinary course of service and cannot be held against them.

41. Therefore, the interim orders passed in favour of the petitioners, permitting Ajit Chauhan to appear in the 2021 Part II examination, vide order dated 26.07.2021 in W.P.(C) 11634/2019 and permitting Vikas to appear in the 2021 and 2024 Part II examinations, vide orders dated 26.07.2021 and 07.01.2025 in W.P.(C) 7003/2021 are accordingly made absolute.

42. The results of both petitioners shall now be declared, if not already, and all consequential benefits flowing therefrom shall be extended to them in accordance with law.

43. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

44. No orders as to costs. AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.