Delhi High Court: A review petition was filed by a practicing advocate, acting as a litigant in person, challenging a prior court judgment that dismissed his writ petition, arguing that the decision favoring respondent 3 for a position at ISRO contained factual and legal errors, particularly in the interview stage of the selection process, which he claimed was unfairly conducted despite his higher written exam score, as well as misrepresentations of recruitment criteria and inaccuracies in score calculations, ultimately leading to a miscarriage of justice. A division bench of C. Hari Shankar and Girish Kathpalia, JJ., held that the review petition was devoid of merit, affirming the previous judgment by emphasizing that the selection process was conducted fairly, with no evidence of procedural irregularities or misrepresentations in recruitment criteria, thereby dismissing the plea for a reassessment of the selection outcome.
According to the selection criteria, marks from the written test were normalized and combined with interview scores in a 60:40 ratio to determine the final merit list. The petitioner secured 79.25 out of 124 in the written exam, normalized to 38.25 out of 60, and scored 21.27 out of 40 in the interview, resulting in a combined score of 59.62. Meanwhile, Respondent 3, who was ultimately selected, scored 58.5 out of 124 in the written test, normalized to 28.31 out of 60, and received 36.55 out of 40 in the interview, yielding a total score of 64.86. Despite his higher written test score, the petitioner was ultimately placed last in the interview and, therefore, scored lower overall than the selected candidate.
The petitioner, who had participated in the recruitment process but ultimately scored the lowest among candidates interviewed, contended that the process was flawed, particularly in the interview phase. Initially, he filed a review petition that contained harsh criticisms of the judge’s judgment on the basis that it was issued just before the judge’s elevation to another Court. Although he later withdrew that petition upon request, the petitioner proceeded with a subsequent review petition, which became the focal point of the present case. Throughout the proceedings, the petitioner’s behavior raised significant concerns.
Despite multiple warnings from the Court, he made repeated allegations that the judgment under review was simply a “cut-copy-paste” of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) decision and asserted that it was part of a broader effort to conceal a “scam in government service.” The Court noted that his conduct appeared to aim at intimidating the bench, prompting it to put these remarks on record as examples of unacceptable behavior by a litigant. The petitioner’s persistence with these remarks led the Court to reserve judgment on the matter.
The petitioner initially challenged the selection outcome before the CAT, arguing that the interview was not conducted fairly. The CAT dismissed his claim, noting that the selection criteria had been transparently applied and that the petitioner had willingly participated in the process without objection. Dissatisfied with the CAT’s ruling, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court, arguing that the normalization process was manipulated to favor the respondent. The petition was also dismissed, with the Court affirming the legitimacy of the selection process and highlighting the petitioner’s inconsistent stance, objecting only after failing to secure the position.
In his review petition, the petitioner alleged multiple factual errors in the Court’s judgment. He contended that the judgment misrepresented the selection criteria, inaccurately recorded scores, and falsely asserted that he had challenged the selection process itself rather than its implementation. The Court, however, found that these so-called “errors” were mere misinterpretations on the petitioner’s part and did not qualify as “errors apparent on the face of the record.” The Court emphasized that a review petition is not an appeal in disguise but a mechanism for rectifying obvious mistakes, if any. Here, the court determined that the judgment, when read as a whole, did not contain any material errors that would impact its outcome.
The Court remarked that “what the petitioner has done is cherry pick sentences from the judgment, ignoring the overall discussion and analysis of the rival contentions, which has been crystalized above. None of the observations, labelled as “error” in the Review Petition is erroneous, much less an “error apparent on the face of record”, if the entire judgment is examined. The judgment, read in its entirety clearly shows that there is no error, what to say of error apparent on the face of record. Going a step deeper, none of the so-called errors would have a bearing on the outcome that the present respondent no. 3 having secured the highest and the petitioner having scored the lowest, it is the former who was recruited. The petitioner consciously participated in the recruitment process, wherein the principle of normalization had been described in the vacancy advertisement itself. The petitioner did not even whisper any irregularity till he was rejected on account of his lowest score.”
Thus, the Court dismissed the review petition, deeming it frivolous and without merit because the petitioner had selectively cited portions of the judgment while ignoring the broader analysis and reaffirmed that Respondent 3’s selection was consistent with the advertised selection process.
[Ravi Kumar v. Department of Space, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7636, decided on 05-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Petitioner in person
Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra and Mr. Alexamdar Mathai Paikaday, Advocates for respondents
