Delhi High CourtShambhu Prasad Nawani And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 November, 2005Equivalent citations: 125(2005)DLT500, 2005(85)DRJ628Author:Mukul MudgalBench:Mukul Mudgal,H.R. MalhotraJUDGMENT
 

Mukul Mudgal, J.Page 24851. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioners had appeared in examination for the promotion to the E list in respect of Telecom Cadre held on 13th March, 2000. The petitioners state that the examination were held on the basis of the standing order No. 22/1995. The petitioners' further case is that on the basis of performance in the written test, the petitioners were found eligible and fit for appearing in the practical test which was conducted on 26/27th April, 2000 & thereafter the petitioners were allowed to appear in the interview on 29th April, 2000. Being unsuccessful in the overall result, the petitioners have challenged the non grant of promotion.In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court inSub Major J.S. Randhawa v. Union of India and Ors.reported as 2000(5) SLR 387 which held that no requisite percentage of mark have been laid down for the interview in ITBP (Indo Tibetan Board Police) i.e. respondent No. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Director General of ITBP had observed that failing in interview has no meaning at all because passing of the interview has now been done away in the all India Services examinations. It is also submitted that the Special Leave Petition filed against the above judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the writ petitioners were entitled to succeed. The case of the petitioners is that after taking into consideration the overall secured marks by the petitioners, they were was entitled to be promoted & an insistence upon minimum 40% marks in the interview was uncalled for & unsustainable. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the standing order dated 24th November, 1999 being the standing order No. 8/99/1999, which according to him was relevant and applicable in the present case. This standing order provided as follows:-"6. In written, practical tests and interview a candidate must pass in each subject securing minimum 40% marks and 50% marks in overall aggregate to qualify the test and to bring him on approved list 'E'."3. The learned counsel for the respondent states that in view of the standing order dated 24th November, 1999, which was not the basis of the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the candidate was required to secure minimum 40% marks in written, practical tests and interview.4. A perusal of the above standing order, the validity of which has not been challenged before this Court, demonstrates that all candidates were required to secure 40% marks in written, practical test and interview and since this was the relevant standing order applicable to the test conducted Page 2486 on 26/27th April, 2000, the petitioners could not rely upon the above judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which was not based upon the above standing order as that was not under consideration before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the writ petition has no merit as the petitioners did not fulfill the minimum percentage indicated in the applicable standing order. The above judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had been passed on the basis of the order passed by the Director General which had noted the requirement of obtaining marks in interview have no meaning because the minimum marks in interview had been done away in the All India Services Examinations.5. Since the petitioners have not challenged the validity of the above standing order No. 8/99/1999 dated 24th November, 1999, we express no opinion in respect of the validity of the standing order. However, it is open for the petitioners to take appropriate proceedings challenging the validity of the said standing order dated 24th November, 1999 in view of the changed and current procedure adopted in All India Civil Services Examination.6. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.