Supreme Court Held That Candidates Which Were Appointed To The Position Of Private Secretaries After The Re-valuation Be Entitled To Notional Seniority At Par With The Previously Appointed Batch Mates

Case title:

Sunil & Ors.Vs High Court of Delhi & Ors. Etc. 

And Dinesh Singh Nayal & Ors. Vs. High Court of Delhi through Registrar General & Ors.

Date of Order:

April 28, 2023.

Bench:

Hon’ble Justice M.R. SHAH

Parties:

Appellant(s) - Sunil & Ors., Dinesh Singh Nayal & Ors 

Respondent(s)- High Court of Delhi & Ors. Etc, High Court of Delhi through Registrar General & Ors.

SUBJECT

The original respondents have filed the current appeals because they feel wronged and unsatisfied by the impugned common judgment(s) and order(s) made by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 949 of 2019, 7893 of 2019, and 10668 of 2022.

OVERVIEW

• The High Court of Delhi issued an invitation for applications in 2016 to fill 27 open positions for private secretaries. On July 4, 2016, there was a written exam in which 135 candidates participated. On July 5, 2016, a skill and typing test was held, and on December 22, 2016, the written exam's results were announced. Three applicants submitted representations before the release of the final merit list asking for a second look at their answer sheets. 
• The Delhi High Court (Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1972 did not include a provision for rechecking or re-evaluation of the answer sheets, hence the Selection Committee dismissed the arguments. The successful candidates' interviews took place on January 19 and 25, 2017.
• Garima Madan received a copy of her answer sheet and, in a representation dated January 27, 2017, asked the Competent Authority to reconsider/recheck some of her responses and provide her the chance to participate in the interview. 
• On January 30, 2017, the final merit list as a result of the written test and interviews was released and posted online.
• The High Court announced the selection of 27 individuals, including the initial writ petitioners before the High Court, to the position of private secretaries. A duplicate of the respondent's answer sheet, Dinesh Kumar, was also given in response to his application.
• The candidates who requested a reevaluation submitted Writ Petition (C) No. 4260 of 2017 to the High Court. The Delhi High Court ordered the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court to make an impartial conclusion regarding a reconsideration of the evaluation and/or marks in an order dated May 17, 2017. 
• On May 23, 2017, the Acting Chief Justice established a Special Committee to address the subject of how to evaluate particular exam questions. Candidates for re-evaluation submitted additional representations while these processes were ongoing. 
• The representations were presented for reevaluation by a total of 13 candidates. Out of which, 05 candidates have already been hired as of February 2, 2017, according to a notification; the remaining 8 candidates, as such, were not hired.
• After then, one Saphalta Bhati filed Writ Petition (C) No. 8255 of 2017 with the High Court, requesting a re-evaluation. The High Court later dismissed this petition on the grounds of delay and laches in a judgment dated September 15, 2017. 
• By order dated October 27, 2017, the review application was also dismissed. After that, on March 1, 2018, the Acting Chief Justice decided that those candidates who had their scores raised and whose scores were found to be higher than those of the candidates already in place could be appointed to fill the 22 open positions for private secretaries without displacing the 27 individuals who had already been chosen.
• At this point, it is necessary to highlight that the Acting Chief Justice remarked in the administrative note dated 01.03.2018 that an unfortunate situation had arisen as a result of the limited reevaluation of only 13 candidates, let alone to limited questions.
• Re-evaluating all of the files would cause an undue delay, and because the appointments were made a year ago, it is difficult to turn back the hands of time.
• Dinesh Kumar filed a request for re-evaluation on May 25, 2018, or 15 months after he received a copy of his answer sheet on February 20, 2017. Lately filed writ petitions of a similar nature also existed. 
• That following, the candidates who are the appellants in this case filed representations on July 16, 2018, requesting that their seniority be taken into account as per the revised marks and that they be placed in the seniority list/select list at the appropriate positions. They were unhappy with the denial of seniority as per the increased marks.
• The Special Committee ultimately decided to give the candidates notional seniority in accordance with revised marks after hearing from the appellants and other candidates who were unhappy that they had been denied seniority based on their higher marks in the meeting on October 1st, 2018. 
• As a result, on October 23, 2018, a revised merit list was created and posted online. On January 15, 2019, a final announcement stating each candidate's seniority in terms of marks earned was posted online.
• In the meanwhile, a woman named Sapna Sethi petitioned the High Court with Writ Petition (C) No. 2863 of 2018 to request that the Special Committee take her case into consideration. 
• The Special Committee took into account the case of Ms. Sapna Sethi, a previously unsuccessful candidate, in the meeting that was conducted on February 21, 2019, and gave her an additional 3.5 points.
• The High Court granted the aforementioned writ petitions, invalidated the merit lists dated 23.10.2018 and 17.12.2021, and ordered that the candidates whose names appeared on the Final Merit List released on January 30, 2017, as well as those who received the benefit of reevaluation, would be considered to have been appointed on that date. 
• However, their seniority and position would be calculated after the last candidate appointed. Therefore, the current appeals.

ISSUES RAISED: 

Whether the appellants herein whose marks were increased pursuant to the exercise of re-evaluation are entitled to be ranked in accordance with the revised marks in the merit list which determines their seniority for future promotions?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:

• Shri C.U. Singh, a learned Advocate, spoke on behalf of the appellants. He claimed that faulty marking had previously prevented each appellant from being included in the select list. 
• It is argued that after reevaluating, they received higher marks than the previously chosen candidate, making them eligible for both the appointment and ranking according to the revised marks in the merit list, which establishes their seniority for future promotions.
• It is argued that the Special Committee correctly decided to provide the appellants seniority in accordance with their marks when the merit list was changed as a result of the reevaluation's altered marking. 
• It is argued that the High Court has since reversed this decision, ordering the appellants to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list even though their appointments as of January 30, 2017, the date the initial merit list was published, have been affirmed.
• According to the argument, the respondents didn't make an attempt to request reevaluation until November 2018 despite being aware of the inaccurate marking and the fact that the High Court was evaluating the matter of reevaluation based on the representations and writ petitions filed by 13 applicants. 
• It is further said that the respondents were fully aware of the High Court of Delhi's directive that the reevaluation would be limited to the grievances raised by 13 candidates in its judgment dated 20.07.2017.
• It is argued that even though the respondents were aware that the re-evaluation was being conducted and the results thereof were provided to them on 12.09.2017, they deliberately chose not to challenge the orders or seek re-evaluation after the re-evaluation was closed by order dated 30.08.2017. 
• It is said that only five of the 27 initially chosen candidates promptly requested reevaluation, as opposed to the other 22 candidates who had previously been chosen.
• It is argued that because this was a merit-based decision, the candidates' seniority would be determined by their position on the merit list rather than by simply being given fictitious seniority as of January 30, 2017. The amount of service is irrelevant because a candidate's right to future employment is based on the position they obtained on the merit list.
• Learned counsel further stated that the court's rulings in the cases of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. vs. Ningam Siro & Ors. (2020) 5 SCC 689 and W.P. (C) No. 712/2015 in the cases of Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Registrar General of Delhi High Court, which were cited by the respondents' attorneys, are inapplicable to the facts of the current case.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:

• Learned counsel contended that respondents were never offered the chance to reevaluate their response sheets as was done in this case for the appellants. They didn't have the opportunity to request reevaluation earlier because they were chosen and appointed on January 30, 2017, in accordance with the initially published merit list. 
• Even though the applicable rules did not specifically mention reevaluation, the appellants in this case were subject to a reevaluation as a result of court orders and a Special Committee judgment.
• It was a unique courtesy. If re-evaluation was an option, then all candidates who would have been impacted should have gone through the same procedure;
• It was further contended that Dinesh Kumar was relegated in the second and third Merit Lists even though he was qualified for an additional two points. 
• As a result, even though the responding replies were more deserving of the position than the less deserving contenders, an absurd situation had developed. Thus, the High Court's decision to invalidate the Second and Third Merit Lists was justified.
• Learned counsel highlighted that in an order dated 01.03.2018, the Acting Chief Justice stated that the partial re-evaluation of only 13 candidates had resulted in an unpleasant scenario because all 13 candidates' marks had increased. 
• Ideally, all papers should have been re-evaluated on the same standards. Additionally, the Special Committee decided on March 7, 2018, that the ranks awarded based on the First Merit List would not be changed and that the newly chosen candidates would be placed at the bottom of the select list because re-evaluation could not grant any seniority benefits, which the committee believed was the only way to ensure that each candidate received full and equitable justice.
• The 14.03.2018 Notification that gave the appellants a conditional appointment—i.e., they consented to be appointed without affecting the seniority of the initially chosen candidates—has not yet been contested by the appellants.
• Due to their acceptance of a conditional appointment, the appellants cannot be permitted to beat out candidates who were initially chosen.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS-

• The Special Committee advised reevaluating the answer sheets, so the High Court resolved the outstanding writ petitions. The marks of all 13 candidates were raised as a result of the reevaluation of the candidates. 
• The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, noting that the answer sheets had been reevaluated, and that it would be appropriate for the Special Committee to review the report and suggest a course of action going forward before notifying the public of the results.
• The High Court issued an order stating that the Acting Chief Justice may consider making a determination independently regarding whether the marks awarded for the issues covered by these petitions needed to be independently reevaluated in light of their particular characteristics. 
• Following that, a special committee made up of three judges was established to address the re-evaluation issue. Candidates for re-evaluation submitted additional representations while these processes were ongoing. A total of 13 candidates submitted writ petitions or representations requesting reevaluation.
• The Special Committee meeting on July 10, 2017, resolved that an independent examiner would be selected to conduct the re-evaluation, which would only be open to 13 candidates because the others had already agreed to accept the grades given to them. 
• The Special Committee also decided that only those questions that had been raised in writ petitions or re-presentations would be subject to a second review. The Special Committee's ruling from July 10, 2017, became legally binding.
• Acting Justice in its decision referred that an unfortunate circumstances have arisen due to the limited re-evaluation of only 13 candidates. Re-evaluating all papers would cause an unreasonable delay, though, and because appointments were made a year ago, it would be challenging to turn the clock back.
• There are no issues with recruiting individuals who meet the criteria after re-evaluation because there are 22 PS vacancies under the 75% test quota. The question of determining these people's seniority and whether any re-fixing is required needs to be taken into account.
• It should be noted that the Acting Chief Justice clearly said in the administrative note that the issue that must be explored moving forward is how to determine these people's seniority and whether any re-fixation is required. 
• The Special Committee was asked to look into the issue of fixing seniority. The Special Committee initially decided to rank the newly chosen candidates at the bottom of the seniority list after that.
• Hon’ble Supreme Court held that It was not possible for the respondents to complain later that the re-evaluation of the marks of 13 candidates could not be to their disadvantage because they failed to object to the earlier decision to have the re-evaluation of only 13 candidates, and even because they did not apply for the re-evaluation at the pertinent time even though the exercise of re-evaluation was ongoing at the time.
• Once the scores have been reevaluated and increased, the corresponding candidates must be positioned appropriately in the merit list.
• Thus, denying seniority based on revised marks would make the re-evaluation process unnecessary.
• Hon’ble Supreme court further held that the candidates with higher scores could not be removed from their positions in the choose list from January 30, 2017. After the error was corrected, they had to be awarded the benefit of notional seniority, or inter se seniority based on merit. The appellants did not fault their own. They were denied appointments and weren't included in the merit list due to the incorrect marking at the time, and as a result, they needed to have their marks revised when they were reevaluated.

CONCLUSION

• The Special Committee's decision to grant candidates notional seniority in accordance with the revised marks on October 1 was wholly justified. 
• By overturning the Special Committee's deliberate decision to grant applicants notional seniority in accordance with the revised marks, the Division Bench of the High Court committed a grave error.
• The question in the matter of K. Meghchandra Singh (previous) was whether seniority to direct recruits could be given from the date the vacancy arose/the recruiting process began when determining the inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits. 
• The appointment of the appellants, effective January 30, 2017, which the respondents have not contested, has been upheld in the current matter. 
• Due to the fact that the application of the reevaluation was essentially a correction to the choose list on 30.01.2017, appellants were granted inter se seniority as of that date.
• The High Court's contested decision and orders are hereby reversed and quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 
• The Special Committee's judgment from January 10, 2018, is accordingly upheld, and it is noted and decided that the relevant appellants in this case will be entitled to notional seniority as of January 30, 2017, in accordance with the updated marks from the reevaluation.