LALIT KUMAR Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by 12 petitioners. Out of all these 12 petitioners, 9 were aspirants to contractual posts of ,,dressers with the respondent no.2, contractual appointment being for a period of only 11 months. Two petitioners were aspirants for the post of Staff Nurse and one petitioner was aspirant to the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM). The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is simple. According to the petitioners as per the advertisement in question, filed at page 26 of the paper -book, there was a requirement of minimum qualifications for a candidate who had also to be selected as per an interview, however it is alleged that the respondent no.2 after the petitioners appeared in the interview put them through another qualification criteria being of a written test and which was not envisaged in the advertisement. It is argued that changing the rules of the game midway by asking the petitioners to appear in a written test without adequate notice (notice being only of 24 hours before the test was conducted) is illegal and arbitrary action of the respondent no.2.

(2.) A reading of the writ petition shows that it is nowhere the contention of the petitioners that the questions which were put in the written test were such tough questions that they could not be answered without preparation. It is not even the case in the writ petition that questions which were asked did not pertain to the subject of the petitioners. It is also further not the case of the petitioners that the questions were not ordinary questions which the petitioners having the necessary qualifications could not have given answers without sufficient preparation. All the aforesaid aspects are relevant because if oral questions can be put in an interview there is no reason why the same type of questions which can be put in an interview cannot be put by asking the candidates to reply to the same by means of written test. Questions in an interview are also put pertaining to the subject related to the relevant qualifications of the candidates, and therefore, merely because questions are put in writing for being answered in writing cannot mean that such questions could not have been put to the candidates for their being answered in writing.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11, wherein the Supreme Court said that introduction of minimum marks of viva voce during the selection process, and which aspect was not notified at the commencement of the process, is illegal. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following paragraphs of the judgment: -