W.P.(C)/3019/2012 of ROCKY DALAL Vs UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 3019/2012 and CM 6514/2012

Date of Decision: 31[st] May, 2012

IN THE MATTER OFROCKY DALAL

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Nishit Kush, Advocate with Mr. Parveen Dahiya, Advocate

versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS. Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate for R-1/University.

..... Respondents

CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1.The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for quashing and setting aside the admission list dated 07.05.2012 prepared by the respondent No.2/college for the course of Post Graduate Diploma in Global Business Operation for the academic session 2012-13.

2.The facts of the case are that on 20.1.2012, the petitioner had applied to the respondent No.2/college for admission to the aforesaid course on 20.01.2012. The written test for selection of the candidates for admission was conducted on 21.01.2012. The results of the written examination were declared on 01.03.2012. The petitioner secured 321 marks in the written examination and was ranked 16[th] in the merit list of the

W.P.(C) 3019/2012 Page 1 of 9

applicants in the general category.

3.As per the prospectus circulated by the respondent No.2/college,

the selection criteria was prescribed as below:-

“Selection Criteria

Candidate has to qualify written admission test of two hours duration consisting of four parts – English Language Proficiency, Quantitative Ability, Logical Ability and General Knowledge. Each part shall consist of 40 questions carrying 4 marks each. There is negative marking of 1 mark for wrong answer.

Limited number of candidates will be called for Group Discussion and Personal Interview (GDPI) on the basis of merit order of written test.

The weightage for Written Test and GDPI will be 75% and 25% respectively.

final selection will be made in order of merit under respective category on the basis of total marks obtained by candidates in Written Test and GDPI.”

4.After being declared successful in the written examination, the petitioner was called to participate in the group discussion and interview, in which he appeared on 29.04.2012. On 07.05.2012, when the final results of

the selected candidates were declared, the petitioner found that his name did not appear in the said list but was placed at Sr. No.51 in the wait-list relating to the general category candidates. Aggrieved by the aforesaid result, the petitioner has filed the present petition with grievance that his name was wrongly excluded from the list of selected candidates.

5.The main plank of the argument urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire selection process undertaken by the

W.P.(C) 3019/2012

respondent No.2/college stands vitiated on account of the fact that for the purpose of group discussion and interview, the college had called candidates more than six times of the number of seats that were available for the course in question, and had arbitrarily assigned marks to the candidates who had appeared in the interview. It is further contended that very low marks were given to the petitioner in the interview, due to which, despite having scored very high marks in the written examination, he was not selected. In support of his submission that minimal importance ought to be attached to viva voce test, as in the case of students, the personalities of the candidates have yet to develop and not much importance ought to be given to that aspect, while greater weightage ought to be given to performance of the written examination, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) A. Periakaruppan vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.,AIR 1971 SC 2303

(ii) Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(1981) 4 SCC 159

(iii) Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors., (1985) 4 SCC 417.

6. Reliance has also been placed on the aforesaid judgments to contend that the number of candidates to be interviewed should normally be between two or at the most three times the available vacancies having

regard to the average time of 10 to 30 minutes that should be given to interview each candidate and that calling large number of candidates for the interview has not been approved by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid pronouncements.

7. Counsel for the respondent No.1/University refutes the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the present petition is misconceived for the reason that the petitioner having participated in the process of selection, was well aware of the terms and conditions of the selection process as prescribed in the prospectus issued by the respondent No.2/college for the course in question. He states that the prospectus had clearly stated that candidates were required to qualify both, written as also Group Discussion and Personal Interview (GDPI) and the weightage for written test was fixed as 75% and of GDPI was 25%. He states that in view of the fact that the petitioner was conscious of the process of selection prescribed by the respondent No.2/college and he having participated in the said process with full knowledge thereof, it is now impermissible for him to challenge the said process, having failed to make the mark in the results that were ultimately declared. He further states that the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) that has been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, has been distinguished by the Supreme Court in

the case of Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported as 2010(6) SCALE 166. In the said case,wherein reference was made to the judgment in the case of State of U.P. vs. Rafiquddin and Ors.reported as 1987 Supp. SCC 401 and the observations made in the aforesaid judgment, which were to the effect that there cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding weightage to be given to the interview as against written examination and it must vary from service to service, according to the requirements of the service, were taken note of and reproduced. It was noted that the court was not well equipped to examine this aspect, which was more in the domain of experts. The Supreme Court had also observed that in Ashok Kumar Yadav’s case, the selection made by the Haryana Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Haryana Civil Service was under challenge and in that case, the court had held that allocation of 33.3% for viva voce was high as it opened the door for arbitrariness, however, the Constitution Bench did not interfere with or strike down the selection process that was adopted for making the appointments.

8. This Court has heard the counsels for the parties and considered their respective submissions in the light of the decisions referred to and relied upon by the learned counsels.

9. There is no doubt as to the fact that the prospectus issued by the respondent No.2/college has clearly laid down the selection criteria that

the respondent No.2/college had proposed to adopt for making admissions to the course in question. The admission process was split into two parts, namely, written examination and the GDPI. It was also clarified that limited number of candidates would be called for GDPI on the basis of merit order of written test. Admittedly, the petitioner had participated in and cleared the written test but was not selected after the GDPI and instead he was placed in the waitlist. Now, for the counsel for the petitioner to contend that excessive number of candidates had been called for the viva voce and that had the number of candidates been reduced, the petitioner would have stood chance to have been selected for admission, is untenable for the reason that even in the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra), the Constitution Bench had observed that it had been the practice in UPSC, to call for interview, candidates representing not more than twice or thrice the number of available vacancies, but in the said case, the Haryana Public Service Commission had called for interview, all candidates numbering over 1300 who satisfied the minimum eligibility requirement by securing minimum of 45% marks in the written examination and this was the practice that was being consistently followed by Haryana Public Service Commission over the years. Thereafter, the Supreme Court had observed that the selection process followed by Haryana Public Service Commission could not be said to be vitiated merely on the above ground and that something more

than merely calling an unduly large number of candidates for interview must be shown to invalidate the selection made.

10. As matter of fact, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra)as the said judgment was based on its own fact situation, which related to service matter, wherein the Haryana Public Service Commission had issued an advertisement for making recruitment, in response to which, about 6000 candidates had applied and out of the aforesaid 6000 candidates, over 1300 candidates had obtained more than the minimum qualifying marks and were called for interview and the viva voce examination and thus, interviews were held for 61 posts. As result, after the written examination, the viva voce and the interview process took six months to complete. It was in this context that the Constitution Bench had observed that normally two or at the most three times of the available vacancies should be interviewed. Incidently, in the aforesaid case, during the continuation of the prolonged selection process, 119 more posts had become available for being filled up and resultantly, 119 candidates were ultimately selected and recommended for appointment by the Haryana Public Service Commission to the State Government.11. Unlike the above case, where the question of selection pertained to the administrative services, in the present case, the subject matter of selection is an academic course. It has been pointed out that as against 62 seats that were available for admission in the course of question, over 188 candidates were called by respondent No.2/College for interview. When the petitioner participated in the process, he was well aware of the parameters laid down for selection. The requirement for selection was twofold, firstly the written examination and secondly, the GDPI. The course in question is Post Graduate Diploma in Global Business Operation, wherein the candidates would be expected to have large amount of interface with the public and therefore communicative skills as also the personality of the candidates would necessarily have to be assessed in the GDPI. In any case, as against 75% weightage given to written examination, the weightage assigned for the personal interview is 25%, which cannot be stated to be excessive.

12. Further, the Court is not inclined to interfere as it does not possess the expertise or the necessary wherewithal to assess as to whether the manner of determining the minimum qualification was justified or the selection process ought to have been changed merely because the petitioner has grievance that the process adopted for conducting the interview by calling more than two or three times of the candidates as against the seats available, was arbitrary. It may be reiterated that there cannot be any hard

and fast rule regarding the extent of weightage that is to be given to the viva voce test as against the written examination and there are series of considerations for conducting such test which are best left to experts in the field. As observed in Lila Dhar’s case (supra)and Ashok Kumar Yadav’s case (supra), it is not for the Court to lay down whether interview test should be held at all or how many marks should be allowed for the interview test and the matters of this nature are more appropriately left to the wisdom of the experts. It is also relevant to note that no allegations of malafides have been leveled by the petitioner against either the respondents, or the committee that conducted the viva test, so as to invalidate the process.

13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court declines to interfere in the selection process adopted by the respondent No.2/college for the course in question. The petition is therefore dismissed as being devoid of merits alongwith the pending application while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

MAY 31, 2012 rkb/anb

(HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE