Yogesh Yadav v. Union of India & Anr

SANJIV KHANNA, J. kapil / dk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 8th July, 2011 % Judgment Pronounced on: 5th August, 2011 + LPA No. 561/2011 YOGESH YADAV ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Preet Pal Singh, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ In this intra-court appeal, the warrantableness of the order dated 24th May, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 7007/2007 is called in question. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the necessitous facts which are required to be stated are that the appellant applied for the post of Deputy Director (Law) in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category in the office of Competition Commission of India (CCI) pursuant to a notification / public notice dated 11th November, 2009 inviting applications for various posts. In the notification, 13 vacancies were mentioned for the post of Deputy Director (Law) and there was a break-up in three categories, General, Scheduled Caste and OBC and the number of vacancies were 9, 1 and 3 respectively. Under the head of eligibility / qualification / experience for the post of Deputy Director (Law) was Bachelor of Law (Professional) or equivalent with three years" experience in the relevant filed, including the corporate sector. Clause 7 of the Notification provided for the mode of selection. It was stipulated as follows: - "7. Mode of Selection All the applications received by the due date will be screened with reference to the minimum qualification criteria. From amongst the eligible candidates, suitable candidates will be short listed through a transparent mechanism and the short listed candidates will be called for interview before final selection. Mere fulfilling of minimum qualifications by itself would not entitle any applicant for being called for interview." 3. The appellant, on 5th January, 2010, was informed that the written examination was to be held on 14th February, 2010 for short listing the candidates for interview. The appellant was issued the admit card and the detailed instructions including the syllabus and the scheme of examination. Clause 4 of the instructions postulated as follows: - "4. The selection to all the positions advertised will be based on a written test followed by an interview. The written test will carry 80% of the marks and interview will have 20% of the marks. The written test will be in two parts. The first part will be based on multiple choice questions for 50 marks. There is no negative marking in this multiple choice questions. The second part carrying 30 marks will be distributed to the descriptive questions on the subject of your specialization within the broad outline of the subject of specialization as indicated in the advertisement." Clause 9 of the said instructions was as follows: - "9. Candidates who do not secure 50% of the marks in the test will not be called for the interview. However, for candidates belonging to the reserved categories, the cut off marks will be 40% of the total marks." 4. The appellant appeared in the written examination on 14th February, 2010 and secured 51 out of 80 marks. He was called for interview on 19th March, 2010. The result for the post of Deputy Director (Law) was published on the website by the respondent and only five candidates from the general category were finally selected against 13 vacancies notified by the Commission. None from the reserved category was selected for the said post. As the final result did not give details about the individual marks secured by the candidates, the appellant sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and eventually, the appellant was informed that he had secured two marks out of 20 marks in the interview and w