Delhi High Court Allows Review Petition, Recalls Direction To Respondents To Appoint Petitioner Due To Low Merit

A division bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur has allowed a Review Petition filed by the Respondents seeking review of its order directing the Respondent to recall the appointment of a candidate(writ petitioner). Review was sought on the ground that the candidate had not made his place in the merit list, however, the Single Judge had directed the Respondents to recall his offer of appointment. Background The Petitioner (writ petitioner) was denied the appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) as the period of his absence from work was considered as Non-Qualifying Service (NQS). He filed a Writ Petition before the Court which held that the Petitioner was denied the post unlawfully. He challenged the order of rejection based on the fact that his absence from work was considered as Non-Qualifying Service (NQS) without informing him of the same. Observing that the Respondents had not informed the Petitioner of his absence from work being counted as NQS and that the rejection on that basis was not justified, the Court directed the Respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post as per the respective merit in the respective Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). The Court passed the Order on 19.08.2015. Aggrieved by the Order, the Respondents filed a Review Petition in the Court seeking a direction from the Court to recall the offer the appointment to the Writ Petitioner. It was submitted by the Review Petitioner that the last selected candidate was at serial no.139 while the Writ Petitioner was at serial no.139 and therefore he had not made a place in the merit list for appointment. Meanwhile the Writ Petitioner contended that the Order did not require a review as the Review Petitioner had also approached the Supreme Court where the Petition was dismissed and the Revision Petitioner was given liberty to file a review petition before the High Court. Findings of the High Court: The Court perused the order of the High Court in which the Court had asked the Respondent (Review petitioner) if the Writ Petitioner had been informed of the NQS entry in his service record. The Counsel for the Respondent had answered in negative. The Court further observed that the Respondents had put an adverse entry in the service book of the Petitioner without letting him know and it would not run parallel with the Principles of Natural Justice. Moreover, without giving an opportunity of being heard, no punishment could be prescribed, nor could any adverse entry be put into the service book of any person, the court had held. Furthermore, the Court had emphasized the requirement of an unblemished service record, till the issue of appointment letter which was denied to the Petitioner as he was never intimated about the period of time which was considered as NQS. It was held that till the rejection of the Post, the petitioners' last four years' ACRs prior to the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) were good and his service record was also unblemished. Therefore, instead of issuing an order of rejection, the Petitioner was entitled to an offer of appointment. The Court had also held that the number of days counted as NQS was void and meaningless and could not sustain in law. Noting that the service record was unblemished, the Court had directed the Respondents to appoint the Petitioners to the post of Sub Inspector (GD) as per their respective order of merit in their respective LDCE. On review, it was held that the Court had only considered the question as to whether the intimation regarding having treated the period of absence from work as NQS was made to the Petitioners before the Order. However, the Court was not informed about the merit of the Petitioner by which his appointment could be determined. The Review Petitioner informed the Court that the Writ Petitioner was unable to make his place in the merit list by reason of being placed at Serial no. 184 while the last candidate selected for the post was at serial no.139. The Court held that the Petitioner was unable to achieve the merit cut-off and accordingly allowed the Review petition and the direction to the Respondent to issue appointment letter to the petitioner was recalled. Furthermore, the Court left the option of challenging the merit list open to the Petitioner in case of further grievances. Case Title: GIRRAJ PRASAD GURJAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORSCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1143 Counsel for Writ Petitioners: Mr.Satya Narayan Vashishth, Ms.Meena Kumari and Mr.Nitin Kumar Tewatia, Advs. Counsel for Respondent/Review Petitioner: Mr.Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, SPC for Review Applicant. Click Here To Download Judgement/Order

Delhi High Court Allows Review Petition, Recalls Direction To Respondents To Appoint Petitioner Due To Low Merit

Syed Nazarat Fatima

Tags