Kailash Gambhir, J. (Oral):--

1. In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the six petitioners have challenged the introduction of the criteria of mandatorily qualifying the interview test comprising 25 marks for selection to the post of ASI (Radio Mechanic) and HC (Radio Operator) in Border Security Force Communication, set up in September 2013 through an advertisement. The petitioners also seek quashing of the results of the interview held for the aforesaid post at Delhi Centre at STS BSF, New Delhi from 23.12.2013 to 1.1.2014.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that in September 2013, the respondents had issued an advertisement inviting applications from male/female candidates for direct recruitment to the post of ASI (RM), HC (RO) and HC Fitter in BSF Communication. As per the terms and conditions provided in the advertisement, the selection was to be held in two phases; the first phase comprised a written examination of three hours, divided into four parts wherein: Part I comprised of Physics paper for 60 marks; Part II of Mathematics paper for 60 marks; Part III of Chemistry paper for 30 marks and Part IV of English and GK for 50 marks. All the four parts formed part of one OMR based objective type multiple choice paper. The minimum qualifying marks for General and OBC candidates were 38% and for SC/ST candidates were 33%. The second phase of selection process comprised of four steps in the case of ASI (RM) and 5 steps in the case of HC (RO). After qualifying these steps, the candidates had to go through a detailed medical examination to assess their fitness. The said steps are as under:-

(i) “Preliminary screening – Height and weight

(ii) Physical efficiency test – 800 m race in 4 mins, 9 ft long jump and 3 ft high jump (3 chances)

(iii) Verification of original documents

(iv) Dictation (in English) for HC (RO) – 10 marks

(v) Personal interview – 25 marks.”

3. The final selection of the candidates was to be made on the basis of the overall merit, as secured in the written test, dictation test and interview. No minimum qualifying marks were prescribed for the interview, unlike the qualifying marks allocated for the written examination.

4. The grievance raised by these petitioners is that based on their performance in the written examination, they were called to participate in the selection process for the second phase, but thereafter, they were not called for their medical examination as they failed to score the minimum qualifying marks in the interview. They contend that in the advertisement, no minimum qualifying marks had been prescribed for the interview and that the respondents had changed the rules, in the midst of the selection process, despite the fact that there was neither such provision for the interview in the Recruitment Rules nor did the advertisement prescribe any qualifying marks for the interview, even though it specifically provided for qualifying marks in the written examination.

5. Ms. Rekha Palli, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the Recruitment Rules never prescribed any personal interview, therefore the respondents could not have acted contrary to the Recruitment Rules by prescribing a personal interview for 25 marks as a part of the second phase of the selection process, therefore the introduction of the same should be struck down. Therefore, the respondents could not have changed the rules of a game amidst the selection process to the prejudice and detriment of these candidates who had qualified the written examination and the other tests to reach the final stage of their medical examination. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments:-

(i) Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 633;

(ii) Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi and Anr., AIR 2010 SC 3714;

(iii) Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, AIR 2008 SC