The court held that directing the framing of objective parameters for a skill test, after finding the original process lacked objectivity and evidence, does not constitute an impermissible 'change of rules midway' in the recruitment process.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 28.11.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.43 of 2023, titled Shakun Saini Vs. Union of India and Others, by the present appellant, whereby the writ petition filed by the present appellant has been allowed. While allowing the writ petition filed by the present appellant, order dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure P-7), whereby the candidature of the appellant had been rejected was quashed and set aside. Further while allowing the petition, the respondent-Institute was directed .to test the ground/skill abilities of the appellant either on the parameters fixed on 19.09.2022 by making them more objective or by framing fresh parameters, which are objective in nature and thereafter subjecting the present appellant to the said criteria, after informing the appellant of the said criteria in advance.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present case at hand are that a post of Physical Training Instructor in respondent No.2-University had been advertised on 03.11.2021. The appellant had applied for the said post. On 17.08.2022, the appellant had received a letter for document verification, written test and trade/skill test to be held on 19.09.2022. The petitioner had appeared on 19.09.2022. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure P-7) the candidature of the appellant was rejected. In the aforesaid backdrop, the writ petition was preferred by the appellant and following reliefs had been prayed for:-

“(i). The impugned order dated 23-09-2022 Annexure P-7 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents Pto consider the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor and issue appointmHent order in favour of the petitioner within time bound manner in pursuant to selection process conducted by thfe respondent on the basis of the advertisement duly advertised vide dated 03.12.2021.

(ii)(a) That the resptondent may be directed to re-do the Trade/skill test by notifying the criterion in advance by at least 15 days and thereafter, declare the result of the petitioner with all consequential action like issuance of appointment letter in case selected.

(ii)(b) The respondents be directed to conduct the said Trade/Skill test by video graphing of the same.

(ii)(c) The respondent may be directed to setup a neutral H expert committee to conduct the said Trade/skill test.

(iii) Respondent may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner as Physical Training Instructor (PTI) with all the consequential benefits.”

3. In the reply filed by the respondents, it has been categorically averred that six candidates, other than the appellant, who were fulfilling the minimum essential criteria fixed in the advertisement, had been shortlisted for appearing in the written as well as the skill test to be conducted by the respondents. However, on 19.09.2022, when the document verification, written test and skill test were held,. it was only the appellant, who had appeared. None of the other six candidates, who were fulfilling the essential qualification had appeared.

4. Further in the reply, it had been averred that a 4-Member Selection Committee was constituted, as per the statutes of the Institute. The said Committee had two experts in the field of sports one from IIT Kanpur and the other from IIT Mandi. Besides the aforesaid, in the reply filed it has been stated that the appellant failed to clear the skill test/ground test. The same was qualifying in nature. It is admitted that in the written test the appellant had secured 59 marks.

5. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the moot question, which arose for the consideration before the learned Single judge was as to whether the appellant had been subjected to a fair skill/ground test by the respondents-Institute. From a perusal of the recor