The court reinforced that rectifying selection errors is within authority, emphasizing adherence to recruitment rules.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner through the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of second/ revised select list as well as revised waiting list issued by respondent-Board, which has been issued after putting the original merit list in abeyance.

2. The respondents produced original record of meeting of Board constituted to revise the result. Photocopy of the proceedings is taken on record.

3. The respondent through notification No. DAVP 10702/11/005/1819 dated 28 April-4 May, 2018 advertised 95 posts of Fireman classified as Group 'C'. 19,073 candidates out of total 2,24,997 were shortlisted and called for written examination. 3954 candidates appeared for written examination. As per prescribed standards, candidates who qualified written examination were called for Physical Endurance Test (in short "PET"). 908 candidates appeared for PET. 718 candidates qualified the same. Based on performance in both examinations, result of provisionally selected candidates was prepared and out of 95 selected candidates, 74 were appointed till 17.12.2018 in different units. One candidate sought information under RTI and at this stage, it was found that mistake in evaluation has occurred due to erroneous answer key. The matter was discussed with Ministry of Law and Justice and on the advise of Law Ministry, fresh Board of officers was set up for re-evaluation of OMR answer sheets and preparation of 'Revised Merit List'. The competent authority approved speaking order dated 5.2.2019 of withdrawal of appointment letters of 32 provisionally appointed candidates. Notification was published on the website on 17.02.2019 and subsequently in Employment News dated 23/29 March, 2019 disclosing, "the Select List and Wait List published vide Employment News under reference is held in abeyance with a view to rectify discrepancies and errors in marks/results, the revised result will be uploaded on the website www.bhartiseva.com and published in the Employment News in due course".

4. The petitioner in the original result was at serial No.37 in the waiting list and in his own category (OBC), he was falling at Serial No. 13. He was not issued appointment letter. In the revised result, he is no more in the waiting list. The cut off for the OBC category as per revised result is 75 whereas petitioner has secured 69 marks. 467 candidates who earlier have not undergone PET were called for. The revised result of selected and waiting list candidates was uploaded on website on 28.09.2019 and published in Employment News dated 05-11 October, 2019 after completing all the formalities. The candidates were provisionally selected for appointment to the post of Fireman and called for pre-recruitment formalities.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that respondent after completion of process of recruitment could not recall the process and make fresh appointments because it amounts to colourable exercise of power. It also amounts to favouritism and arbitrary action on the part of respondent. The respondent has not placed on record the copy of RTI application which prompted the respondent to have re-look at question papers and carry out fresh exercise of recruitment.

He further submits that respondent has revised result on the basis of an application filed by candidate under Right to Information Act. An application under RTI is filed before a different office than recruitment office. The respondent has not disclosed as to how recruitment office ca