The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court.
Before the High Court the stand of the respondent was that the methodology adopted in assessing his performance was erroneous.
Writ petition was filed by the Respondent alleging that his pre existing enlistment was number revalidated on erroneous premises.
Respondents application for revalidation of enlistment was refused on the ground that he did number fulfill the requisite criteria.
The Letters Patent Appeal questioning companyrectness of learned Single Judges order was dismissed.
Primarily on two grounds the marks were denied to the respondent.
The present appellants in the companynter affidavit filed stated that the evaluation was done companyrectly.
Learned Single Judge numbericed that there were two factors for which the marks were number allotted.
It was indicated that on evaluation of his performance he fell short of the required marks and, therefore, his request for revalidation was number acceptable.
It was denied of legitimate marks.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant summarily.
