AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Valmiki J Mehta, J.
CM. No. 13959/2013 (under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC)
A representation dated 9.7.2013 has been filed by one of the applicants. If that applicant would be successful in the representation dated 9.7.2013, then, at that stage cause of action will accrue because on the representation being favourably considered, rights of the applicants will be affected.
The application is therefore dismissed with liberty to one of the applicants who has filed the representation dated 9.7.2013 to approach this Court if the department favourably considers the representation dated 9.7.2013.
W.P. (C) No. 7920/2012
Respondent no. 2 has not filed the counter-affidavit in spite of last opportunity. Even costs have not been paid. Right to file the counter-affidavit by respondent no. 2 shall stand closed. Petitioners were aspirants to the post of Junior Executive (PA) with the respondent no. 1/Airport Authority of India. Petitioners by this writ petition claim that shorthand test conducted by the respondent no. 2 on behalf of respondent no. 1 was based on arbitrary evaluation and no guidelines and therefore the same should be declared as illegal and bad. Petitioners pray for re-evaluation on the basis of earlier criteria adopted for candidates.
On behalf of the petitioners, their counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a letter dated 17.7.2012 issued by the respondent no. 1 to the respondent no. 2 wherein query was raised as to the aspect that one mark was deducted for each mistake in the shorthand test conducted on 5.6.2011 whereas in the subsequent test which was conducted on 18.12.2011 two marks were deducted for each mistake in the shorthand test. It is argued that this change of criteria is illegal. However, counsel for the petitioners himself has drawn the attention of this Court to the letter dated 1.9.2012 sent by the respondent no. 2 to the respondent no. 1 and which specifies that two marks were deducted for each mistake because the test held on 18.12.2011 was made extremely simple at the last minute and therefore question paper was set much below the standard followed in previous examination. It is further clarified in this letter that marking is accordingly done by the same persons who have set the examination papers.
In the present case, the only right which can accrue to the petitioner would be on the basis of the respondents'' actions being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In my opinion, there is no arbitrariness and consequent illegality in the action of the respondents in the present case for the same to violate Article 14 once it is seen that with respect to all candidates a uniform standard of marking is applied and given. The present is not a case where rules of the game are changed midway because issue is of marking/evaluation and not of change of any rules of selection which remains the same of clearing of the typing test and clearing of the shorthand and typing test thereafter.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition for the petitioners to be granted the reliefs, and who have been unsuccessful in the shorthand and typing tests as they have committed more mistakes than were permissible, and in fact there are other candidates who having committed less mistakes as per the uniform test applied were therefore selected. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.