ABHISHEK SHARMA  Vs AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ORS

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 1 of 19
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 11.12.2020
Pronounced on : 12.01.2021

+ W.P.(C) 5516/2020 & CM No.19867/2020 (for interi m direction)

ABHISHEK SHARMA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Anshuman
Mehrotra and Mr. Nikunj Arora, Advocates

versus

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ORS …. Responden ts
Through: Ms.Anjana Gosain, Ms. Shalini Nair
and Ms. Aditti Amitabh, Advocates

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

1. Petitioner assails the order dated 19.05.2020 where by his
representations dated 21.03.2020, 30.03.2020 and 02 .04.2020 were
rejected by the Respondents and also seeks a direct ion to allow the
Petitioner to appear before an independent Board/Co mmittee set up by
the Respondents to conduct a fresh Physical Enduran ce Test (hereinafter
referred to as “PET’) and if found fit appoint him as Junior Assistant
(Fire Service) against the unfilled vacancies in th e Northern Region with
all consequential benefits.
2. The narrative of facts as set out in the petition i s that on being
eligible as per the eligibility criteria, the Petit ioner applied against an
2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 2 of 19
Advertisement issued by the Respondents on 20.09.20 17 for recruitment
to 84 posts of Junior Assistant (Fire Service) NE-4 level at various
Airports in the Northern Region. Applications were invited from eligible
candidates who were domicile of Delhi, Punjab, Utta r Pradesh,
Uttarakhand, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kas hmir, Rajasthan
and Madhya Pradesh. Petitioner is a domicile of Raj asthan and pursuant
to application, an admit card was issued for writte n examination
scheduled on 10.12.2017, which the Petitioner clear ed successfully.
Petitioner was thereafter called for Medical Assess ment, Driving Test and
PET and the Petitioner appeared in the various test s, held on 22.03.2018.
3. According to the provisions of Clause 6 of the Adve rtisement,
Petitioner was required to meet certain physical st andards, to be declared
‘Fit’. One of the criteria required to be met was ‘ Height’ (for male
candidates) being not less than 167 cms. Petitioner was however declared
‘Unfit’ as his height was measured and recorded as 166 cms and thus the
Petitioner was disqualified to undertake the remain ing tests. Knowing that
the height of the Petitioner was more than 167 cms, he approached the
Rajasthan State Hospital on 23.03.2018 and after ex amining him, the
Doctor certified the height to be 168.9 cms. A seco nd opinion was also
taken from another Hospital at Jaipur which affirme d the measurement in
the said certificate.
4. Vide email dated 24.03.2018, Petitioner informed th e Respondents
of the height assessment made by the Doctors in the two Hospitals,
followed by a reminder dated 15.05.2018 and request ed the Respondents
to call him for a review examination. On 21.05.2018 , Respondents issued
a Notification of provisional list of selected cand idates, which led to the
2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 3 of 19
Petitioner approaching this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C)
5945/2018, for quashing the Select List, without co nsidering the case of
the Petitioner based on the re-assessment of his he ight.
5. This Court vide order dated 29.05.2018 disposed of the petition by
directing Medical Superintendent of RML Hospital to constitute a
Medical Board for measuring the height of the Petit ioner, within two
weeks of the receipt of the copy of the order and o bserved that the parties
shall abide by outcome of the Medical Board. It was directed that if the
report of the Board was found favourable to the Pet itioner, then there
being a vacancy in the unreserved category, further process for
appointment of the Petitioner would be initiated ex peditiously.
6. In compliance of the judgement, a Medical Board was constituted
and Petitioner was examined. Height was recorded as 167.2 cms and as
the Petitioner qualified the requisite parameter, R espondents vide order
dated 30.10.2018, called the Petitioner for the nex t phase of selection
process, scheduled to be held on 14.06.2020. Petiti oner was directed to
appear in the PET involving the following events:

“i. 100 m running – To be completed in 15 seconds for
which a minimum of 12 marks would be awarded.
ii. Rope Climbing – 20 marks would be awarded if co mplete
8 meters is covered and a minimum of 8 marks even i f fails to
perform.
iii. Pole Climbing – 20 marks on complete height c limbing
which is of 8 meters, otherwise, 8 marks even if no t performed,
iv. 60 m running with human dummy – To be complete d in
40 seconds with a minimum of 12 marks.
v. Full ladder climbing – To be completed in 120 se conds
for which 6 marks would be awarded.”

2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 4 of 19
7. Petitioner also underwent the Physical Fitness Test (Eye Sight) and
Driving Test on 14.06.2019 and furnished the requir ed documents.
According to the Petitioner, while performing the 1 00 meter Running
Test, he was not apprised of the proper Rules and t here were certain
irregularities, which resulted in a confusion, as a result of which the
Petitioner took an extra 1.47 seconds, beyond the c riteria of finishing
within 15 seconds. Several representations were mad e in this regard by
the Petitioner to the Respondents as also to the Ch ief Vigilance Officer.
In the meantime, Dr. Mittal, who had wrongly assess ed the height of the
Petitioner was chargesheeted. After the representat ion by the Petitioner
regarding the 100 meter run, the members of the Com mittee who took the
PET and also included Dr. Mittal were given an admi nistrative
chargesheet.
8. Several representations of the Petitioner for anoth er chance to
undergo the PET finally resulted in an order dated 19.02.2020, whereby
the Respondents decided to reconduct the PET and di rected him to be
present at the venue on 28.02.2020. Petitioner was again aggrieved by the
manner in which the tests were conducted, as accord ing to him, the
sequence of various events namely, Running, Rope an d Pole Climbing
etc. was changed, due to which the Petitioner felt exhausted before
completing the events. This led to the Petitioner a gain representing to the
Respondents, alleging malpractices and arbitrarines s.
9. Petitioner scored 50 marks out of 100 in the writte n examination,
which were the minimum essential marks required and scored 68 marks
in the PET, which too were above the minimum essent ial requirement,
making it a total of 118 marks. However, he was bel ow 148 marks, the
2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 5 of 19
cut off marks of the last candidate selected, as pe r the merit list and was
not selected for appointment. Being unsuccessful in clearing the selection
process, the Petitioner made a representation on 21 .03.2020 followed by
representations dated 30.03.2020 and 02.04.2020. Pe titioner alleged bias
in selection, especially due to inclusion of Dr. Mi ttal in the Committee
constituted for selection and amongst others the pr ime grievance
ventilated by the Petitioner was against the ‘00’ m arks assigned to him in
the Pole Climbing Test, as according to the Petitio ner, he should have
been given at least 8 marks, in accordance with the provisions of Circular
No. 08 of 2017, issued by the Respondents on 06.03. 2017. The
representations were collectively rejected by the i mpugned order dated
19.05.2020.
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the rejection of the
candidature of the Petitioner is a result of malafi de and vindictiveness of
Dr. Sudhir Mittal, who had initially wrongly assess ed and recorded the
height of the Petitioner, resulting in the Petition er being declared ‘Unfit’
in the Physical criteria. The negligence and callou sness of the Committee
came to light when the two Government Hospitals at Rajasthan and the
Medical Board at RML Hospital, assessed the height of the Petitioner and
he was found to be meeting the physical standards. On account of the fact
that Dr. Mittal had wrongly assessed the height, Ch argesheet was issued
to him and this resulted in his harbouring an ill-w ill towards the
Petitioner. Subsequently when the Committee was con stituted to re-
conduct the PET, Dr. Mittal was a part of the Commi ttee and it is only
natural that out of vengeance, he influenced the ot her members of the
Committee, and persuaded them to disqualify the Pet itioner. The
2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 6 of 19
argument is that once the Respondents had chargeshe eted Dr. Mittal, it
was both illegal and unfair to include him as a mem ber of the Committee
constituted to re-conduct the PET.
11. It was next contended that the harassment of the Pe titioner
continued during the fresh PET also. Several irregu larities were
committed during the conduct of the tests, the firs t one being,
modification in the sequence of conduct of events. The sequence has a
relevance and is designed to ensure that the candid ates retain the energy
and strength upto the last test. The sequence alter ation exhausted the
petitioner in the middle of the process and he was thus unable to
accomplish the required parameters, to the best of his capacity and
stamina.
12. It is next contended that in the Pole Climbing Test , Petitioner was
assigned ‘00’ marks on the ground that he could not complete the task.
This is contrary to the Circular dated 06.03.2017, as per which petitioner
was entitled to be awarded minimum 08 marks, as he had climbed the
pole upto a certain height. Award of zero marks res ulted in the Petitioner
scoring less than the cut off marks i.e. 148 marks and consequent non-
selection to the post in question.
13. It was also urged by learned counsel for the Petiti oner that because
of repeated illegalities committed by the Responden ts and the selection
being delayed, the Petitioner has now become over-a ge and cannot apply
afresh for the said post. Recruitment process must be fair, transparent and
based on merit of a candidate, but once it is taint ed with bias and
malafides, as in the present case, the entire proce ss stands vitiated.
2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 7 of 19
Reliance is placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Krishan
Yadav vs. State of Haryana 1994 (4) SCC 165 in this context.
14. Per contra it is argued by learned counsel for the Respondents that
there is no irregularity or illegality in the selec tion process, as alleged by
the Petitioner. Insofar as the initial assessment o f the height of the
Petitioner was concerned, it is submitted that Peti tioner was declared
‘Unfit’ by the Medical Team headed by Dr. Mittal, w ho was one of the
members of the Selection Committee. However, this w as at best an error
of judgement and assessment and not out of bias, as at that stage
petitioner was only a candidate who had applied for selection and was
unknown to the doctor. Once the height of the Petit ioner was certified as
meeting the Required Height Standards, he was given an opportunity to
appear for the PET on 14.06.2019 and was informed o f the same, 10 days
in advance, vide order dated 04.06.2019. PET marks were allocated, by a
duly constituted Selection Committee, comprising of High-Level Officers
and was based purely on the performance of the Peti tioner and the laid
down criteria. Nonetheless once the petitioner flag ged certain issues in
his representation, in order to be fair to the Peti tioner, a second
opportunity was given to appear in the PET on 28.02 .2020. To obviate
any hurdle in fair selection and dispel any impress ion of alleged bias, it
was ensured that an outside agency is involved in t he conduct of PET.
Accordingly a senior officer from CISF was included in the Selection
Committee. As a measure of abundant precaution and to ensure complete
transparency, additionally, the events were videogr aphed. A perusal of
the video footage clearly reveals that there was no irregularity in the
conduct of the test and fair opportunity was given to the Petitioner, in the
2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 8 of 19
presence of the CISF Officer. The Petitioner was aw arded marks as per
his actual performance, on ground, which is visible in the video clipping
and no bias can be alleged. It was submitted that t he video footage can be
shown to the Court, if so required, and the same wo uld substantiate the
stand of the Respondents.
15. It was next contended that the Petitioner had attem pted the event of
Pole Climbing but could not complete the required t ask of climbing
beyond 2 metres. It was explained to the Court that the total height of the
Pole was 8 metres, out of which, 2 metres were exem pted, keeping in
view the height of the candidate. A white line was marked on the Pole,
which indicated the end of 2 meters as well as comm encement of the
further height, which the candidate had to climb an d the marks were
given on the basis of the height achieved after the mark. This criteria of
evaluation was uniformly followed for all candidate s and was known in
advance. Since the Petitioner could not cross the 2 metre mark, he was
awarded ‘00’ marks. It is further argued that the P etitioner is misreading
and misinterpreting the Circular dated 06.03.2017. It is nowhere
mentioned in the Circular that a candidate cannot b e awarded ‘00’ marks
and/or that a mere attempt to climb entitles a cand idate to be awarded
minimum 8 marks. If the interpretation sought to be made by the
Petitioner is accepted, there would be no requireme nt of having a mark at
the end of 2 meters and that being the height of th e candidates, every
candidate would be able to achieve the 2 meter heig ht and entitled to 8
marks. The purpose of the PET was to test if the ca ndidate could climb
the Pole above the height of 2 meters, in keeping w ith the nature of the
job for which the selection was made. Recruitment r elates to a post of
2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 9 of 19
Junior Assistant (Fire Service) and in the event of an incident of fire in a
building, at a height, the most crucial part of the exercise to control the
fire and evacuate persons, shall be climbing. Respo ndents cannot thus
compromise with respect to the test relating to pol e climbing.
16. It was next contended that even assuming for the sa ke of arguments
that the Petitioner was entitled to 8 marks in the Pole Climbing even then
this argument would not help the Petitioner. The ar gument of the learned
counsel for the Respondents is that the last select ed candidate had a rank
of 43 with 148 marks. Petitioner scored a total of 118 marks with a rank
of 224 and thus even if the 8 marks are added to th e score of 118 marks,
the total would be 126 and would be well below the marks of the last
selected candidate. There are 91 candidates who are above the Petitioner
and below the last selected candidate in the merit list and there are 41
candidates who have obtained ‘00’ marks in Pole Cli mbing and any
further opportunity to the Petitioner for reconduct of the PET would open
a Pandora box.
17. It was also contended by counsel for the Respondent s that the
present selection relates to an advertisement of th e year 2017 and the total
number of vacancies advertised were 84. 83 vacancie s have been filled
and one vacancy has been kept reserved by virtue of an order of the Court
but is a reserved vacancy in the category of ‘OBC’. Petitioner cannot be
adjusted against any future vacancy and the petitio n deserves to be
dismissed.
18. Counsel for the Petitioner arguing in rejoinder con tends that the
first stage of selection in case of the Petitioner showed the callous,
negligent and lackadaisical approach of the Respond ents whereby they
2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 10 of 19
had wrongly assessed the height of the Petitioner, below his actual height.
It is well-known that the height of the person neit her increases nor
decreases after a certain age and but for the numer ous representations of
the Petitioner and the order of this Court, the Pet itioner would have been
ousted from the selection process at the very initi al stage. On receiving a
chargesheet due to the irregularity committed, Dr. Mittal obviously had
bias against the Petitioner. Thus, when a fresh Com mittee was formed
and it included the same Doctor, it was written on the wall that the
Petitioner would be given low scores and irregulari ties would continue in
the selection process. The PET held on 14.06.2019 w as a mere formality
and the result was known in advance to the Petition er.
19. It was also argued that when the PET was conducted, the merit list
and the cut off marks were known to the Respondents and due to
malafide, the scoring was done in a manner that the Petitioner did not
reach the cut off mark. Right from the start of the second PET, the events
were so held that it created confusion in the mind of the Petitioner. As an
illustration, it is pointed out that in a 100 meter run, the whistle ought to
have been blown at the starting point in consonance with the Starters
Guidelines issued by International Association of A thletics Federation,
whereas the same was blown at the end point of the 100 meter track.
20. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties a nd examined the
contentions.
21. Present writ petition relates to recruitment to the post of Junior
Assistant (Fire Service) in the Airports Authority of India. The selection
process was in various phases starting with an onli ne computer based
written examination carrying 100 marks, followed by the certificates /
2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 11 of 19
documents verification. In the next phase the candi dates were required to
undergo Medical Fitness / Physical Measurement Test and on being
qualified, the next stage included Driving Test and Physical Endurance
Test. It is undisputed that at the start of the sel ection process, Petitioner
was disqualified to undergo the next phase of selec tion as he did not meet
the physical criteria on account of his height havi ng been incorrectly
measured. Petitioner resorted to the path of litiga tion and this Court
directed a Medical Board to be constituted by RML H ospital to measure
the height of the Petitioner and in case the report was found to be
favourable to the Petitioner, to process the case o f the Petitioner for
selection expeditiously.
22. Admittedly, the Petitioner on being reassessed by t he Medical
Board qualified the height criteria and was called for the next process of
selection on 14.06.2019, wherein Driving Test and P ET were conducted.
The PET was by duly constituted Committee, comprisi ng of 7 members,
including Dr. Mittal. Petitioner could not qualify the PET and through his
representation raised various grievances including alleging irregularities
in the 100 meter running event. The representations of the Petitioner
resulted in the Respondents conducting the PET afre sh on 28.02.2020.
However, the Petitioner was again unsuccessful in s coring marks to
qualify the threshold of 148 marks, scored by the l ast selected candidate
in the merit list, prepared keeping in view the num ber of vacancies
advertised.
23. While the main argument of the Petitioner hinges on the bias of Dr.
Mittal, who is impleaded as Respondent No.6 in the present petition, the
contentions raised can be broadly summarized as fol lows :-
2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 12 of 19
(a). Bias of Dr. Mittal on account of the chargeshe et issued to him for
incorrectly measuring the height of the Petitioner at the initial stage of
selection vitiated the selection process as he was included as member of
both the Committees constituted to conduct the PET.
(b). In the PET conducted on 14.06.2019 there were irregularities
committed in the conduct of the 100 meter race even t and on the
representations of the Petitioner, a fresh chance w as accorded to undergo
the PET and an administrative chargesheet was issue d to the Committee
Members, vindicating the stand of the Petitioner th at there was
irregularity in the process and the bias of Dr. Mit tal.
(c). Petitioner was clearly entitled to a minimum of 8 marks in Pole
Climbing as per the Circular dated 06.03.2017, but was awarded 00
marks, due to the bias of Dr. Mittal.
(d). The Selection Committee conducted the PET on 2 8.02.2020, by
which time the merit list had been declared on 21.0 5.2018 and since the
Members knew the marks of the other candidates as w ell as the
Petitioner, they deliberately gave low marking in t he PET so that the
Petitioner did not come up to the cut-off marks in the merit list.
24. In so far as the argument of the Petitioner that th e selection process
of PET is vitiated by bias and should be conducted afresh, this Court
cannot agree with the Petitioner for more than one reasons. First and
foremost, the Committee which was constituted for c onducting the PET
on 28.02.2020, comprised of 5 members from differen t disciplines, such
as GM (HR), GM (Tech), GM (Ops), Joint GM (FS), Jo int GM (MS) and
most significantly an outside expert i.e. Commanda nt, CISF was
included in the Committee. Admittedly, there are no allegations of bias
2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 13 of 19
leveled by the Petitioner against any of the other members of the
Committee, leave and except Dr. Mittal. As brought out by the
Respondents the three members were GMs who were sen ior to Dr. Mittal
and one was an outside expert from CISF and the Pet itioner has been
unable to establish how Dr. Mittal influenced or co uld influence his
senior officers and a CISF Commandant. In the absen ce of any
allegations of bias against the other members and/o r there not being
impleaded as a party in the petition, the Court can not subscribe to the
argument that the entire Committee was biased again st the Petitioner. I
am fortified in my view on this aspect by a judgmen t of the Division
Bench of this Court in Narender Yadav vs. Union of India and Anr . in
W.P.(C) 2574/2000 decided on 12.02.2013, where an identical issue had
arisen before the Court. The Petitioner therein had applied for Direct
Recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant in BSF and after
clearing the written examination had appeared for t he PET, where his
physical measurements were incorrectly recorded. On approaching the
Court in a writ petition the Court had directed Rev iew Medical
examination of the Petitioner. As a result of the r eview, the measurements
were found to be in accordance with the prescribed standard. However,
after qualifying the PET, the Petitioner scored low marks in the interview.
He approached the Court alleging bias of one of the Members of the
Interview Board who happened to be the officer who had earlier
disqualified him in the physical standards. The sam e argument as is
sought to be raised by the Petitioner herein was ra ised before the Division
Bench and the Court observed the following while di smissing the writ
petition :-
2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 14 of 19
“8. Another aspect which is relevant while consider ing the
legality of the petitioner’s non-selection is the c ircumstance
that Mr. Rana was not the only member of the interv iew
board; it consisted of five other officials, most o f who were
higher in rank than him. Under these circumstances, even
the allegation of bias is extremely tenuous and has not been
established.”

25. The other reason that weighs with the Court to conc lude that bias,
if any, on the part of Dr. Mittal could not have re sulted in the low scores
of the petitioner, is that keeping the chequered hi story of the case in the
background, the Respondents had, apart from includi ng a CISF Officer in
the Committee, had by way of abundant caution, to e liminate any
allegation of bias and for the sake of transperancy , videographed the
Physical Endurance Test. Admittedly, each and every event i.e. 100
Meter Race, Ladder Climbing, Rope Climbing, Pole Cl imbing and Race
with Human Dummy was duly videographed. The actual performance of
the Petitioner was thus captured by the video and i t is not the case of the
Petitioner that there was any tampering with the re cording. Once the tests
in question involved physical performance on the gr ound and were
videographed, it can hardly be argued by the Petiti oner that there would
be subjectivity in marking, assuming in favour of t he Petitioner that any
one Member of the Committee nurtured a feeling of b ias against him. For
the same reason, the outcome of the various events and their results could
not have been manipulated against the Petitioner. I n fact with the consent
of the counsel for the Petitioner, the video record ing was played during
the course of hearing. Since the main argument and contest of the
Petitioner was with respect to the event of Pole Cl imbing, the Court had
2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 15 of 19
the occasion to witness the event from the start to the end. Court noticed
that the event of pole climbing was witnessed by al l Members of the
Committee along with the timer and the Petitioner w as briefed before the
start of the event. It was evident that the Petitio ner was not able to cross
the white mark on the pole which was at a height of 2 meters from the
ground level, despite his best efforts. In view of the above, I am of the
opinion none of the Committee Members could have ch anged the scores
of the Petitioner out of any alleged bias and since the Petitioner did not
meet the requisite parameter, he was awarded ‘00’ m arks.
26. I may also note in this regard that the marks obtai ned by the
Petitioner in the various PET events have been plac ed before the Court in
a tabular form and the table is as follows:-
“ASSESSMENT SHEET FOR RE-CONDUCT OF PHYSICAL ENDURA NCE TEST FOR
THE POST OF JUNIOR ASSISTANT (FIRE SERVICE), Advt. No.01/2017/NR held
on 28.02.2020 AT SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI
Total Marks: 100
Pass Marks: 60
Pass Marks: 60 (no relaxation)
S.
No
. Roll
No. Nam
e
(S/S
hri) 100 M
Running
(Max.
Marks-20)
(In Sec.) Rope Climbing
(Max. Marks-20)
(Total timing 20
Sec.)
(8 Meters) Pole Climbing
(Max. Marks-20)
(Total timing 30
Sec.)
(8 Meters) 60 mt.
running
with
human
dummy
(50 Kg.)
(Max
Marks 20)
(In Sec.) Full Ladder
Climbing
(Max.
Marks -20)
(In Sec.) TOTA
L
MARK
S
OBTA
INED
OUT
OF
100
MARK
S Rema
rks
(quali
fied/
not
qualif
ied
Tim
e
(In
Seco
nd) Ma
rks Tim
e
(In
Seco
nd) Hei
ght
(In
Met
ers) Ma
rks Ti
me
(In
Seco
nd) Heig
ht
(In
Met
ers) Ma
rks Ti
me
(In
Seco
nd) Ma
rks Tim
e
(In
Seco
nd) Ma
rks
1 13080
10244 Abhi
shek
Shar
ma 14.
44 12 14.
93 FUL
L 20 30 00 00 23.
63 16 31.5
6 20 68 Qualif
ied

2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 16 of 19
Sd/ – 28.02.2020
R P Singh
GM (Tech)
Member Sd/ – 28.02.2020
Manoj Kr Behera
GM (Ops)
Member Sd/ – 28.02.2020
P K Deshmukh
Jt. GM (FS)
Member Sd/ – 28.02.2020
Dr. Sudhir Mittal
Jt. GM (MS)
Member Sd/ – 28.02.2020
Sh. Bhaskar Kumar
Commandant
(CISF)

Sd/- 28.02.2020
Sh. Harbir Singh, GM (HR)
Head of Selection Committee

27. Petitioner has thus scored 12 marks in the 100 mete r run, 20 marks
in rope climbing, 16 marks in running with the huma n dummy and 20
marks in full ladder climbing. It is evident that i n two events the
Petitioner has been awarded 20 out of 20 marks i.e. full marks and even
in the other two events, he has scored high marks. If there was any bias,
Committee would not have awarded such high scores t o the Petitioner in
all events except the pole climbing. Respondents ha ve also placed on
record photographs depicting the conduct of the pol e climbing event and
based on the photographs and the video recording th is Court concludes
that the Petitioner has been fairly assessed and ha s been awarded marks
as per his performance and the score obtained in po le climbing is not the
result of any bias, but actual performance, on the ground, by the
Petitioner.
28. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously argued that as
per the circular dated 06.03.2017 and the Advertise ment, the Petitioner
was entitled to be awarded minimum 8 marks in the p ole climbing, on a
mere attempt, irrespective of the height up to whic h he had climbed.
Respondents have however, per contra, sought to exp lain and, in my
view, rightly, that the total length of the height of the pole was 8 metres,
out of which 2 metres was exempted keeping in view the height of the
2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 17 of 19
candidates. For this reason, there was a marking in white on the pole at
the end of 2 metres and it was from this point upwa rds that the candidate
had to climb in order to be awarded marks in the po le climbing. The
Petitioner could not complete the task of even goin g up to 2 metres. There
is nothing in the Circular which supports the stand of the Petitioner that
even if the candidate is unable to cross the initia l height of 2 metres,
which is exempted, he/she would be entitled to mini mum 8 marks. If the
interpretation placed by the Petitioner is accepted by the Court, the
purpose of testing a candidate for pole climbing wo uld be lost as 2 metres
from ground level would be the height of the candid ate. The recruitment
in question relates to the Fire Service and climbin g heights is a sine qua
non of the job profile. Since the Petitioner did not a chieve the required
benchmark, in my view, no arbitrariness or illegali ty can be found in the
action of the Committee in awarding him ‘00’ marks for the pole
climbing event.
29. I also find merit in the contention of the Responde nts that the
Committee did not have prior knowledge of the cut-o ff marks obtained by
the last candidate in the merit list and therefore, had no reason or
occasion to give no scores to the Petitioner in the PET, as alleged by the
Petitioner. The Petitioner has been unable to rebut this stand of the
Respondents and failed to establish how the Committ ee was privy to the
marks obtained by the last candidate in the merit l ist. This argument
would also not sustain for the reason that this Cou rt has already given a
finding in the earlier part of the judgment that th ere was no bias on the
part of the Committee Members. This argument of the Respondents is
strengthened by the fact that there are around 41 c andidates who were
2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 18 of 19
awarded ‘00’ marks in the pole climbing apart from the Petitioner, as
brought out by the Respondents during the hearing.
30. There is also substance in the argument of the Resp ondents that
even assuming that the Petitioner is awarded 8 mark s in the pole climbing
he would not come above the benchmark of 148 marks, scored by the last
selected candidate in the merit list and also that between the Petitioner
and the last selected candidate there are 98 candid ates who could not be
selected having scored marks below the cut-off mark s.
31. Petitioner has relied on the judgements in the case of K. Manjusree
v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2008) 3 SC C 512 , to argue
that once the selection process starts, the rules c annot be changed as this
would be changing the rules of the game after it ha s started. This Court is
unable to fathom how the said judgement applies to the facts of the
present case. At best, the contention of the Petiti oner was that the
sequence in which the events were held was differen t from the earlier
selection process. This, in my view, does not amoun t to changing the
rules of the game. This argument also has no merit for the reason that the
Petitioner had without any demur or protest partici pated in the events and
most significantly as mentioned above, he has score d high marks in most
of the events. The Petitioner had also relied on th e judgement in the case
of Dr. (Mrs.) Kirti Deshmankar v. Union of India and O thers, (1991) 1
SCC 104 to argue that bias in a selection process vitiates the process. In
the said case, the Supreme Court had noted that the mother-in-law of the
selected candidate was present in the meeting of th e Council and
therefore there was no necessity of establishing an y bias as her presence
was enough to invalidate the selection process. Wit hout a doubt the facts
2021:DHC:130

W.P. (C) 5516/2020 Page 19 of 19
of the said case are completely distinguishable fro m the present case. At
the cost of repetition, I must state that the Petit ioner has not leveled
allegations of bias against Members of the Committe e except one for Dr.
Mittal and as observed by me earlier the process of selection with which
this Court is concerned in the present petition is the physical event, based
on actual performance and not on subjective satisfa ction of any
Committee Member and the performance was clearly ev ident from the
video recording.
32. For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in t he writ petition.
The same is accordingly dismissed along with pendin g application.

JYOTI SINGH, J
JANUARY 12 th , 2021
yo/rd/yg
2021:DHC:130