In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has maintained the sanctity of the law in the case involving Applicant Nos. 1 and 5. The judgement marks a pivotal moment in ensuring justice for all individuals involved. Stay tuned to learn more about this crucial legal verdict. #DelhiHighCourt #LegalJudgement #JusticeServed
Facts
- The petitioners in W.P.(C) 6047/2020, who were applicant nos.1 and 5 in O.A. No 663/2014, are to be considered for appointment under the OBC and SC categories, respectively.
- They will be given 85% weightage to the marks obtained in the written examination and 15% weightage to their interview performance.
- The SAURABH BANERJEE, J (ORAL) formula of 85% weightage to the written examination and 15% weightage to the interview will be applied.
- The respondents have consented to this formula, with only two additional candidates needing accommodation through supernumerary posts.
- The FAC prays for the dismissal of the writ petitions.
- He presents his argument for why the petitions should not be granted.
- The FAC emphasizes the importance of upholding the law in this case.
Arguments
- Accommodating further candidates by supernumerary post is not possible at this stage.
Analysis
- The course adopted by the learned Tribunal was deemed wholly impermissible.
- The court has not expressed an opinion on the 85% weightage for the written examination and 15% weightage for the interview set by the tribunal.
- The tribunal’s decision should have been applied to all candidates, not just the two petitioners.
- Having different procedures for the same test for different candidates is unconstitutional.
Decision
- The two petitioners in W.P.(C) 6047/2020 can continue in service as Education Officers until the Tribunal decides the OA again
- The Tribunal must ensure that any formula for granting weightage to written exams and interviews is applied uniformly
- The Tribunal has the authority to decide the case on its merits without any interference
- The decision of the Tribunal for O.A. No 663/2014 has been set aside and will be revised
Case Title: DR. VIJAY KUMAR TIWARY AND ANR. Vs. UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. (2024:DHC:4030-DB)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-1379/2020
