The court affirmed the principle that candidates must receive timely notification of appointment tests to ensure fairness in the selection process.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J.: (ORAL)

CM No.20764/2021

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 6611/2021 & CM No.20763/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking stay on the operation of the impugned order]

2. This is a writ petition directed against the order dated 20.01.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short `the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 4312/2016.

3. The only issue, which arose for consideration, before the Tribunal was as to: whether the respondent should be denied his right of appointment for the post of Assistant Superintendent, Delhi Prisons (Post Code 38/13) as he had not participated in the Physical Education Test (PET) on the assigned date?

3.1. The Tribunal has returned a finding of fact that a postal notice dated 11.07.2016, with regard to the date on which the test was to be held, was sent to the respondent. The said notice had set out that the PET was scheduled to be held on 12.07.2016. For the sake of convenience, the said notice is extracted hereafter (See: page 70 of the paper book):

"No.F.55(21)/Exam-II/DSSSB/2016/18503 Date : 11/07/2016

Sub : INTIMATION REGARDING PET FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT IN PRISON DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI POST CODE NO.38/13.

s/d

Office Superintendent (Exam-II) DSSSB

PAWAN S/O RAMESH KUMAR

H[dot]NO 441VPO

AUCHANDI DELHI"

[Emphasis supplied]

3.2. The record shows that, according to the respondent, the aforementioned notice was received by him only on 16.07.2016, that is, after the assigned date for PET had already passed. (See pages 71 and 72 of the paper book). It would be relevant to note that, in this behalf, the Tribunal has returned a finding to the effect that the said assertion, made by the respondent, was not rebutted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners.

3.3. Despite the aforesaid position obtaining, the petitioners, went ahead and defended their position by arguing that, there were other means via which, the respondent was informed as to when PET was to held.

3.4. In this context, Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, who appears on behalf of the petitioners i.e. the original respondents, has drawn our attention to the advertisements taken out in the English and Hindi newspapers. The copies of these advertisements are appended on pages 102 and 103 of the paper book. A perusal of the said advertisements would show that they, generally, adverted to the fact that PET would be held from the "3rd week of June 2016 onwards". Illustratively, the relevant part of an advertisement published, on 27.05.2016, in the Times of India newspaper is extracted hereafter:

"No.F.55(21)/Exam-II/DSSSB/2016/

Dated :

NOTICE

Physical Endurance Test (PET)/Physical Standards Essential for the post of Fire Operator (71/14), Head Constable (43/13), Forest Guard (68/14), Warder (37/13), Matron (36/13) & Assistant Superintend (38/13) is scheduled from 3rd week of June, 2016 onwards. The detailed information and schedule of PET/Physical Standards Essential will be notified soon on official website of DSSSB i.e. www.dsssb.delhigovt.nic.in.

Sd/-

Dy. Controller of Exam"

[Emphasis supplied]

3.5. Ms. Ahlawat has also taken us through the counter-affidavit filed before the Tribunal. Interestingly, the counter-affidavit, in respect of the post in issue, sets out that the PET was to be held on 13.07.2016. A similar position emerges upon perusal of the notice, which is appended on page 106 of the paper book. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of that notice i