Back
2017 Supreme(HP) 808
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sureshwar Thakur, Ajay Mohan Goel, JJ.
Baldev Singh – Petitioner
Versus
High Court of H.P. – Respondent
CWP No. 1602 of 2014
Decided On : 12-09-2017
For the Petitioner: Ms. Salochna Rana.
For the Respondents: Mr. B.C. Negi with Mr. Pranay Prapat Singh.
The absence of evidence of specific mala-fides and the lack of rules mandating the display of key answers in contemporaneity with the results led to the court's conclusion that the recruitment process was not vitiated by lack of transparency.
Headnote:
Transparency - Recruitment Process - The court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the process for filling up advertised posts and directing the respondent to display key answer sheets. The lack of evidence of specific mala-fides and the absence of rules mandating the display of key answers in contemporaneity with the results led the court to conclude that the recruitment process was not vitiated by lack of transparency.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a Clerk position but failed to qualify the written test. He sought to quash the process for filling up the advertised posts and requested the respondent to display the key answer sheets.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not provide evidence of specific mala-fides and that there were no rules mandating the display of key answers in contemporaneity with the results. As a result, the lack of transparency did not vitiate the recruitment process.
Issues: The issues revolved around the lack of transparency in the recruitment process, the petitioner's failure to qualify the written test, and the request to quash the process and display key answer sheets.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of evidence of specific mala-fides and the lack of rules mandating the display of key answers in contemporaneity with the results, leading to the conclusion that the recruitment process was not vitiated by lack of transparency.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of with no costs.
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
1. In pursuance to an advertisement borne in Anexure P-1, the writ petitioner, applied for the post of a Clerk. However, he failed to qualify the written test. Subsequent to his failing to qualify the written test conducted by the respondent, for hence filling up the advertised vacancies, he proceeded to, through the instant petition, seek an order for quashing of the process's initiated for filling up the advertised posts.
2. Be that as it may, he has prayed that the respondent be directed to display the key answer sheets in respect of the relevant test conducted by the respondent. The initial relief aforesaid canvassed in the instant writ petition, does not warrant its being countenanced, tritely for the reason (a) given the writ petitioner apparently, not, making any ascription of any active mala-fides vis-a-vis the respondents, nor his making ascription of proactive mala-fides vis-a-vis the evaluators of the apposite answer sheet, (b) Predominantly also his not imputing any active specific mala-fides vis-a-vis the evaluators concerned, comprised in theirs proceeding to not assess the petitioner vis-a-vis his correctly ticked choices of multiple choice questions, nor obviously theirs’ awarding marks with respect to correctly ticked choices, vis-a-vis respective specific queries, thereupon the evaluators concerned mis-assessing his answer sheets. Moreover, at this belated stage, given the vacancies being filled up, also all the selected candidates receiving appointment letters, besides theirs joining the relevant posts, thereupon it would be in sagacious to hence proceed to nullify the entire exercise.
3. Moreover, the relevant Rules do not hold any prescriptions vis-a-vis the respondent being peremptorily enjoined to display the key answers in contemporanity to display of results of written tests. Even if the aforesaid Rules do not exist, may be, the canons of transparencies may yet enjoin the respondent concerned, to, make displays thereof especially in contemporanity with the display of results of written test, nonetheless, for this Court being enjoined to hold that hence there was no visible infraction vis-a-vis canons of transparencies, yet enjoined erection of the apt relevant evidentiary strata, comprised in attribution of aforesaid active specific mala-fides, vis-a-vis the evaluators. However, the aforesaid ascriptions with specific contours, are not ventilated in the writ petition, corollary whereof is that non-display of key answers significantly in contemporanity with display of results of written test, not negating validity's of the apt recruitment process's initiated by the respondent.
4. Even though, there is a solitary averment qua questions No. 16, 29 and 39, not, holding their apposite choices, for hence theirs being ticked, thereupon miskicking, if any thereof be discarded for all purposes, however, the aforesaid averment is denied, on, an affidavit furnished by the respondent concerned. Consequently, it is inferred that the aforesaid questions also held correct choices, for theirs’ being appositely ticked by all the examinees, including the petitioner. Since, thereafter the petitioner, does not, aver that despite his correctly ticking, one, amongst multiple choices thereof, his being neither evaluated nor his being awarded marks in respect thereof, thereupon the aforesaid bald averment, does not, constitute erection of the apt evidentiary strata by the petitioner, for hence this Court firmly holding that in the respondent, in, contemporanity with the display of results of written tests), not thereat displaying the key answers, thereupon for lack of transparency the recruitment process's being vitiated.
5. Consequently, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of. No costs.
