Dr Nitin Aggrawal v. Union Of India And ORS

$~94 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15949/2024 DR NITIN AGGRAWAL .....Petitioner Through:

Petitioner in person.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Vinay Yadav, SPC with Mr.

Abhinav M. Goel, Advocate for R-1 &3/UOI.

Mr Arjun Mitra, Advocate for Respondent No. .2, IIT Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 19.11.2024 1.

This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner seeking a direction to Respondent No. 2/Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi to declare the result for the post of Deputy Registrar as advertised on 07.03.2020 as also for appointing an investigating agency to conduct review of the recruitment process and grant compensation to the Petitioner along with other reliefs.

2.

Issue notice.

3.

Counsels, as above, accept notice on behalf of the respective Respondents.

4.

Mr. Mitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2/IIT, at the outset, submits that there is no merit in the writ petition. Petitioner assails the result of a recruitment process for appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar in IIT initiated by an advertisement issued on 07.03.2020 in which the Petitioner had participated, however, it is clearly known to the Petitioner that the process has been scrapped and cancelled, as W.P.(C) 15949/2024 Page 1 of 2 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/11/2024 at 12:11:46

evident from the averments in the writ petition. Drawing the attention of the Court to the pleadings, it is argued that Petitioner was clearly informed in response to an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 that the selection process was cancelled and nullified on the ground that while the question paper envisaged negative marking of 0.25 marks for every wrong answer, the calculation of qualifying marks for the purpose of appearing in the interview was inadvertently done without negative marking. The result was that some of the selected and waitlisted candidates who were not qualifying when negative marking was carried out would have been considered by the Interview Board. Mr.

Mitra submits that pursuant to the cancellation of the process, the two direct recruitment posts of Deputy Registrar, both in the unreserved category were directed to be re-advertised. Thus, the Petitioner has no cause of action. Additionally, it is also pointed out that in the meantime, on 22.12.2022, the Recruitment Rules to the post of Deputy Registrar, IIT have been framed and the post is now to be filled through the mode of promotion and Limited Departmental Competitive Examination in the ratio of 1:3 and is no longer open to be filled through Direct Recruitment.

5.

Petitioner who appears in person, at this stage, seeks to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to lay a challenge to the Recruitment Rules, so notified.

6.

Writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for, in accordance with law.

JYOTI SINGH, J NOVEMBER 19, 2024/shivam W.P.(C) 15949/2024 Page 2 of 2 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/11/2024 at 12:11:46