AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman:
The applicant responded to the Advertisement of Combined Graduate Level (CGL) Examination, 2017 issued by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). On the basis of the performance and the consequent results, he was selected for appointment as Auditor. The applicant filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2322/2020 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, seeking the relief of re-evaluation of his performance in the Computer Proficiency Test (CPT). Before the Hon'ble High Court, the respondents pleaded that there is no provision for re-evaluation and raised a plea of jurisdiction also.
Through order dated 02.03.2020, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi disposed of the writ petition taking note of the plea of the respondents that they will look into the matter. It was directed that the Writ Petition shall be treated as representation and necessary steps to be taken.
The respondents passed order dated 22.07.2020 stating that the applicant secured 97 marks in the CPT, whereas the Cut off marks were fixed as 100. They have also mentioned that the final result of the applicant was examined once again and the experts stated that the same result would ensue. The applicant was informed accordingly.
The applicant filed WP (C) No. 7244/2020 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi challenging the said order. It appears that some discussion ensued, but the applicant sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to approach the Tribunal. He has also sought time, for joining in the post of Auditor. The Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn and thereafter the present OA is filed.
The applicant submits that certain documents, procured by filing an application under Right to Information Act, 2005, revealed that several improper deductions were made in the process of evaluation of the performance of the applicant and the same is contrary to the instructions issued to the candidates.
We heard Mr. Gaurav Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rajpal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents at the stage of admission.
The applicant was selected for the post of Auditor and it appears that he also joined it. Before approaching the Tribunal, the applicant filed two Writ Petitions, one claiming relief of re-evaluation and the second, challenging calling the order that 22.07.2020. It was the consistent case of the respondents that there is no provision for re-evaluation for the examination. However, in compliance with the assurance given to the Hon'ble High Court, they have re-examined but did not find any fault with the CPT results.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again, held that re-evaluation cannot be claimed as of right, that too, in the competitive examination, unless there exists any provision for that. The respondents categorically stated from the beginning that there is no provision for re-evaluation. Out of sheer respect for the Hon'ble High Court, the respondents re-examined and the experts opined that there is nothing wrong and no irregularity has taken place.
The applicant was successful in being selected. Though he aimed at securing a post of his choice, the amount of litigation at the threshold of his career may not help him in serving with commitment.
We do not find any merit in the OA and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.