Dismissed

Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC4 Sept 2019W.P.(C)/6391/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 226 challenging the recruitment process for FSSAI due to a 10% weightage given to contractual employees. The single judge dismissed the writ petition, holding the weightage scheme, based on service years and performance appraisal, was not unreasonable or arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

Recruitment process initiated by advertisement dated 26.03.2019 upheld; petition dismissed.

Sachin Kumar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 04.09.2019

¶4

W.P.(C) 6391/2019

¶5

SACHIN KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners

¶6

Through Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents

¶9

Through Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava and Mr.Prajesh V.S., Advocates for R-1. Mr. Mehmood Pracha and Mr. R.H.A. Sikander, Advocates for R-2.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA

¶11

J U D G M E N T

¶12

A.K. CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

By the instant petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, seek to maintain challenge to the recruitment process initiated vide advertisement dated 26.03.2019, which provides weightage of 10% to the contractual employees.

¶14

2 At the onset, it would be pertinent to note that the petitioners had originally filed the petition extending challenge to Rule 11(2) of FSSAI

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

W.P.(C.) No.6391/2019

¶17

Recruitment Regulations, 2018 in short, 'the Regulations, 2018' as also the recruitment process initiated vide advertisement dated 26.03.2019. In view of the fact that there was also a challenge to a Rule under the Regulations, 2018, the writ petition was earlier heard by the Division Bench and during the course of hearing, the petitioners dropped the challenge to the subject rule and the relief prayed in the petition was restricted to the challenge extended to the process of recruitment initiated vide advertisement dated 26.03.2019.

¶18

In the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the weightage in selection process to the persons on contract in the services of the respondent, which is not to exceed 10% of the total score for the entire selection process, was unreasonable and could not be recognized under law and therefore the process initiated to fill any post vide advertisement dated 26.03.2019, was perverse and not sustainable.

¶19

The very submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, is wholly misconceived on at least two counts. Firstly, any challenge extended to the subject rule of the Regulations, 2018, which provide for weightage, having been not in question, the ensuing process of recruitment vide advertisement dated 26.03.2019, cannot be faulted with. Secondly, weightage to be given to the persons on contract in the services of the respondents, as per the advertisement as per clause VI, is not to exceed 10% of the total score for the entire selection process and then, is also to be guided by the parameters laid for the purpose, as under:

¶20

"VI. All persons on contract in the services of the Authority on the date of notification of the

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

W.P.(C.) No.6391/2019

¶23

Recruitment Regulations shall be eligible for weightage in selection process. The weightage shall be given on two parameters viz. number of years of service rendered in the Authority (30% weightage) plus performance Appraisal (70% weightage). The performance appraisal shall be done by a committee nominated by Appointing Authority. The weightage as above shall be added at the first level of selection as applicable to each post and the total combined weightage on account of both parameters (i.e. no. of years of relevant experience plus Performance Appraisal) should not exceed 10% of the total score for the entire selection process."

¶24

The forgoing weightage to be given to the persons on contract, in the considered view of the court cannot be said to be unreasonable and providing for unbridled exercise of discretion, assuming arbitrary, to give any undue favour to anyone.

¶25

For the forgoing reasons, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.

¶26

A.K. CHAWLA, J.

¶27

SEPTEMBER 04, 2019/dm

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

W.P.(C.) No.6391/2019

Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tirupati Engineers Vs Commissioner, Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Scan Holdings Private Limited Vs Dcit, Circle 22(2)

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Delhi and Ors.

Arindam Ghosh Vs the Directorate of Estates & Ors.

M/S S. O. Gas Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Hitik Malhan Vs the State of Telangana & Ors.

Rakesh Filling Station Vs Bindresh Kumar Dubey

Ankit (Minor) through His Father Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mahtab Singh Vs State & Ors.

Sh. Ram Chander Dhawan Vs Sh. Shiv Ram & Ors. (the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd)

Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improverment Board and Ors.

Krishna Chattejee Vs Sanjay Goel & Anr.

Delhi High Court Bar Association Thr. Its Hony. Secretary Shershah Suri Marg New Delhi Vs Rajiv Khosla & Ors.