The court affirmed that seniority of candidates appointed is protected under established merit lists, and any revised promotions must not disturb previously confirmed appointments unless legally justified.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. The High Court of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "this Court") vide Notice bearing No. 276/Estt/E-2/DHC dated 02.06.2016, invited applications from the eligible officers of this Court and subordinate courts to fill up 27 vacant posts of Private Secretaries in the pay band of Rs.16,800- Rs.39,100 + Grade Pay Rs.6,600/- against 75% test quota as per Clause- b(i) of Item No.6 of Schedule II to Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rule, 1972. The written examination and skill tests were held on 04.07.2016 and 05.07.2016 respectively and the result thereof was declared on 22.12.2016. The successful candidates were interviewed on 19.01.2017 and 25.01.2017 respectively and the final merit wise result of successful 27 candidates was uploaded on the intranet of this Court on 30.01.2017.

2. Mr.Dinesh Kumar, the petitioner in the above captioned first and second petitions [W.P.(C) 10668/2022 and W.P.(C) 949/2019] was appointed Private Secretary in terms of recommendations of the "Final Merit List of the Private Secretary Examination-2016 dated 30.01.2017" having secured his place at Serial No.25.

3. Petitioner No.1-Mr.Kunal Muggu and petitioners No.2 to 21 in the above captioned third petition [W.P.(C) 7893/2019] were also appointed as Private Secretaries having secured their respective places in terms of recommendations of the "Final Merit List of the Private Secretary Examination-2016 dated 30.01.2017".

4. During pendency of recruitment process and pursuant to declaration of the results of the written examination and skill test and prior to declaration of "Final Merit List of the Private Secretary Examination-2016 dated 30.01.2017", a few candidates obtained copies of their answer sheets under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (henceforth referred to as the "RTI Act") and requested for re-evaluation of their answer sheets by filing representations. A few other non-selectees also invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking re-evaluation of their results subsequent upon declaration of the results dated 30.01.2017. Thereafter, answer sheets of 13 candidates were re-evaluated and a revised merit list dated 23.10.2018 was notified. The establishment of this Court once again notified another revised merit list dated 17.12.2021.

5. The petitioners in the above captioned three petitions, who are the appointee as per the original `Final Merit List of the Private Secretary Examination-2016 dated 30.01.2017', have challenged the revised merit lists dated 23.10.2018 and 17.12.2021 in these petitions.

6. Before we consider the prayers in these petitions, we briefly note the facts emerging from the record thereof. This Court vide Notice bearing No. 276/Estt/E-2/DHC dated 02.06.2016, invited applications from the eligible officers of this Court and subordinate courts for recruitment to the post of Private Secretaries for filling up 27 vacant posts and conducted the written examination and skill tests in respect thereof. Prior to declaration of final merit wise result of 27 successful candidates on 30.01.2017, three candidates, namely, Ms. Sangeeta Anand, Ms.Garima Madan and Mr.Amit Arora, filed their representations dated 23/24.12.2016 seeking rechecking of their answer sheets, which was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 18.01.2017 observing that "there was no provision for rechecking of answer sheets in the Delhi High Court (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972". Thereafter, Ms.Garima Madan obtained copy of her ans