IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 04.03.2025 DEEPAK BHATT ... Petitioner VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

Present: Petitioner in person.

Mr. Anil Chawla, Sr. Panel Counsel for the respondents.

****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

Raising a challenge primarily to the appointment of respondent No.4 namely Pramod Kumar Dubey, the instant writ petition been filed. A further prayer has been made by the petitioner for directing respondent No.3 to award marks to the petitioner for Questions No.1, 16 and 25 for their correct answers and consequently, directing respondent No.2 to offer appointment to the petitioner.

Petitioner in person submits that the respondent-Indian Institute of Technology (Ropar) had advertised three posts of Jr. Superintendent Group-B vide Advertisement No.86 of 2017. Two of the said posts were for unreserved category while one post was kept reserved for ‘Other Backward Classes’. The last date for submission of the online application was 28.04.2017. Being fully eligible and fulfilling all essential qualifications prescribed thereunder, the petitioner submitted his application. A written examination was conducted by the respondent-Indian Institute of Technology (Ropar) comprising of 30 objective type questions while one question was subjective type. One mark each was assigned to the objective type questions while ten marks were assigned to the subjective type question. The petitioner appeared in the written examination under Roll No.25. The result of the written examination was declared on the notice board as per which the petitioner had secured 60 marks out of 100. A total of 29 candidates appeared in the said examination. Selection Committee recommended to call those candidates who had scored 60 marks and above, consequently, out of the said 29 candidates, only three candidates including the present petitioner were called for computer test/trade test that was held on the same day i.e. 07.05.2018 at 3.15 pm. He contends that after the computer test/ trade test had been held on 07.05.2018, the petitioner continuously visited the official website of the respondent-Indian Institute of Technology (Ropar) time and again to know about the final result, however, he was informed that as and when the final result shall be declared, he would be apprised of the same. Eventually, the petitioner submitted an application on 05.02.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein answer key for the post of Jr. Superintendent Group-B and final result, after computer test/trade test, for the said post were sought. In response thereto, the answer key was supplied, however, the result sheet of the successful candidates was denied on the ground that the information pertained to third party. On acquiring further information, the instant writ petition has been filed on the ground that respondent No.4- Pramod Kumar Dubey, Jr. Superintendent was not eligible as on the last date of submission of the application form, being beyond the maximum age limit of 35 years, and hence, his candidature could not have been considered by the respondent-Indian Institute of Technology (Ropar). Since the final marks secured by the petitioner were equal to the marks secured by Pramod Kumar Dubey-respondent No.4, hence, he ought to have been offered appointment against the said post. Attention of this Court is drawn to the relevant Clause of the Advertisement issued by the respondent-Indian Institute of Technology (Ropar) available on page 70 of the paper book. The same reads thus: -

He further refers to the general instructions that had been published by the respondent-Indian Institute of Technology (Ropar). Clause 7 pertaining to relaxation of age and percentage thereof reads thus:

“7. Relaxation of Age & Percentage i) The maximum prescribed age for each post shall be the same as given against each post in the Recruitment Rules of the Institute. The age shall be