Delhi HC Holds DSSSB Violated Article 14 By Changing Rules Midway | Orders Fire Operator Result To Be Re-Drawn Based On Original Advertisement Criteria
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar held that the selection process adopted for the recruitment to the post of Fire Operator in the Delhi Fire Service was vitiated due to changes made mid-process in the selection criteria. The Court directed the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), in consultation with the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Fire Service, to re-draw the result of the recruitment strictly in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Advertisement No.01/14 dated 27.01.2014. The Court ordered that the Physical Endurance Test (PET) and the Driving Skill Test (DST) must be treated as qualifying in nature, and not be used to determine merit, as originally prescribed in the advertisement. The petitioners, if found eligible based on the revised merit list, were to be appointed with notional seniority placed below already selected candidates.
Multiple petitions were filed by individuals challenging the selection process undertaken for the post of Fire Operator in the Delhi Fire Service by the DSSSB pursuant to Advertisement No.01/14 dated 27.01.2014 under Post Code 71/14. The advertisement initially sought to fill 803 vacancies, later revised to 841. It stated that candidates were required to possess a valid license for driving heavy-duty vehicles and qualify a Physical Endurance Test, Driving Skill Test, and Written Test, as prescribed by the Chief Fire Officer. The selection was to be through a One Tier Written Examination carrying 200 marks, with no specific mention of marks or weightage for the PET or DST.
The written examination was conducted on 31.08.2014 and the result was declared on 24.02.2015. Based on the marks in the written test, candidates were shortlisted for the PET. Notice dated 29.04.2015 clarified that final selection would be made based on the written examination, subject to the candidate qualifying the PET and fulfilling other conditions. The PET was conducted between 17.06.2016 and 29.06.2016, with the evaluation sheet categorizing candidates simply as "qualified", "disqualified", or "absent".
Following the PET, the DSSSB and the Delhi Fire Service convened internal meetings and decided to change the evaluation process. The marks of the PET, originally capped at 30, were scaled up to 100, and the written test marks were scaled down from 200 to 100. Additionally, the DST, initially only qualifying in nature, was allotted 100 marks divided between 20 marks for theory and 80 for practical.
These changes were implemented through notices and decisions dated between March and June 2017. Notice dated 06.06.2017 first disclosed the alteration in the weightage of the written test and PET. DST was conducted between 01.09.2017 and 22.09.2017. The final merit list was prepared on the basis of the scaled-down written test scores, scaled-up PET scores, and DST marks, and was declared on 16.11.2017.
Petitioners, who were aggrieved by this change in criteria after the process had commenced and certain stages completed, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed their challenges. The Tribunal held that the candidates were aware of the selection being based on all three components and found no merit in the contention that the process was arbitrary.
Challenging the CAT’s order, petitioners contended before the High Court that the advertisement had clearly stated that the selection would be based solely on the One Tier Written Examination. PET and DST were only qualifying in nature. They asserted that changes made mid-way through the process violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it altered the rules of the game after the game had begun. They also argued that they were not informed of the revised marking scheme until after the completion of relevant stages and that the decision to assign 100 marks to DST, including a theory component, was not disclosed beforehand.
The respondents countered that the changes were in line with the Recruitment Rules and the original requisition dated 12.04.2013 sent by the Fire Department, which contemplated equal weightage (100 marks each) for the Written Test, PET, and DST. They argued that the selection process was consistent with the departmental requirements and the petitioners, having participated in all stages without demur, were estopped from challenging the process at a later stage.
The Court observed "a combined reading of the above clauses of the advertisement would clearly show that the merit list was to be prepared only on the basis of the marks assigned to the One Tier Examination/Written Test; the PET and the DST were not assigned any marks but were only qualifying in nature."
"There are no marks that are prescribed for the Written Test, the PET, or the DST; the only prescription is that the candidate should qualify these tests."
The Court recorded that internal communications or office orders such as that dated 12.04.2013 were not disclosed to the candidates, and the public advertisement remained silent on any such weightage. "Interestingly, for DST, there was no prescription of the nature or component(s), or the division of marks for the said component(s)."
It was noted that even notices such as that dated 29.04.2015 reiterated that final selection would be made on the basis of written examination results, subject to qualification in the PET. "Therefore, even in this notice, there was no mention of the marks for the PET or the DST; on the other hand, it was instead mentioned that the final selection... shall be made in accordance with the merit list drawn as per the result of the Written Test."
Regarding the later decisions to alter the marking scheme, the Court observed: "The confusion regarding how the marks for the DST are to be awarded continued even thereafter... There was complete uncertainty and confusion, even in the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.3, as to the composition of the DST."
Referring to the proposal submitted for scaling up PET marks and scaling down written test marks, the Court noted: "It was admitted that the candidates had, in fact, been marked and declared only as 'qualified', 'disqualified' and 'absent'."
The Court found that "respondent no.3, realizing its mistake... wanted to change the pattern of examination... Since the Written Test and the PET were already over, it decided to proportionately scale up/scale down the marks..."
The Court stated unequivocally that "there were repeated changes made by the respondents in the selection process and criteria in the middle of the said selection process, thereby vitiating the entire selection process."
Quoting from the Supreme Court’s decision in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, the Court noted: "The doctrine proscribing change of rules midway through the game, or after the game is played, is predicated on the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
The Court added: "The candidates were still not informed that [DST] would carry separate marks for theory and practical, and the syllabus for the theory aspect."
On estoppel, the Court noted: "The mere participation of the candidates in the PET, cannot be an act of their acquiescence or act as an estoppel against challenging the same."
"A candidate is hardly left with any choice even where it finds that the selection process is being arbitrarily changed midway... Once the selection process is found to be violative... such violation cannot be allowed to stand only on the ground that the candidate chose the second option of challenging the violation on the culmination of the selection process."
The Court issued the following directions: "We direct that the respondent no.3/DSSSB, in consultation with the respondent no.1/Government of NCT of Delhi and the respondent no.2/Delhi Fire Service Department, shall re-draw the result of the recruitment process strictly in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Advertisement No.01/14 dated 27.01.2014, that is, with a weightage of 200 marks for the Written Test and by treating the PET and the DST as only qualifying in nature."
The Court clarified: "For the PET, the minimum qualifying marks would be considered as 33% in the three tests as mentioned in the Office Order dated 01.06.2016."
"In case any of the petitioners is found to be eligible for appointment on the basis of this review merit list, they shall be appointed to the said post of Fire Operator with notional seniority to be placed below the already selected candidates."
"Such selected petitioners would also be entitled to notional fixation of their pay, however, they will not be entitled to payment of actual pay or allowances till the date of their appointment."
The Court directed that: "The entire exercise must be completed by the respondent no.3 within a period of eight weeks from today."
In concluding its directions, the Court limited the scope of relief: "We... restrict the relief only to the petitioners in the present set of petitions or any other petitions / OA challenging the impugned selection process that may be pending as on today."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Ms. Jyoti Nambiar, Ms. Alka Dwivedi, Mr. Aditya Sharma, Mr. Abhinav Chauhan, Mr. J. S. Mann, Mr. Mayank Kumar, Mr. Puneet Rathi, Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, Mr. Praveen Kumar Kaushik
For the Respondents: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Mr. N.K. Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam, Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Mr. Amitoj Chadha, Ms. Latika Chaudhary
Case Title: Lokesh Kumar and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5060-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 9617/2018 & Connected Petitions
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Renu Bhatnagar
