MADHU KUKRETI Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner impugns the decision of the second respondent to amend the selection criteria on the ground that the changes in question were brought about after the selection process had been completed. She states that under the circumstances, the changes brought in have placed her at a disadvantage. The petitioner, however, has not challenged the entire selection process but only the appointment of the third respondent, Raghubir Singh Kainturia. It is alleged that the selection process was amended with a view to manipulate the results and extend favour to the third respondent.

(2.) THE second respondent is stated to have issued an advertisement on 29th July, 2006, in the Employment News inviting applications for the post of Executive Assistant for its corporate Office at New Delhi and the petitioner, admittedly, applied for the same. THE advertisement set down the following requirements for recruitment as Executive Assistant (Direct Recruitment) :

(3.) THE information supplied by the 2nd respondent showed that the petitioner had secured 25 out of 60 marks in the Steno Skill test, 11 out of 40 in the written test and 7.20 out of 20 in the interview. Thus, the total marks obtained by the petitioner were 43.20 and accordingly, she was placed third in the merit list whereas another candidate, Raghubir Singh Kainturia, respondent no. 3 herein, had obtained a total of 37.40 and was placed fourth in the merit list.