W.P.(C.) No.11461/2009 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P(C) No.11461/2009 % Date of Decision: 14.09.2009 Anurag Rawat & Others …. Petitioners Through Mr.Gautam Awasthi, Advocate Versus Union of India and others …. Respondents Through Mr.K.P.S. Kohli, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr.Naresh Kaushik and Ms.Aditi Gupta, Advocates for the respondent/UPSC. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL) * 1. The petitioner impugns the selection lists for Army/Navy and for Airforce and for Naval academy on the ground that the merit ranking of the petitioners and some other candidates in Air force merit list is different than the merit ranking in Army/Navy though the candidates had appeared before the same selection Board. The counsel contended that in Airforce merit list, Anurag Mathur was below Mr.Vivek Bhaskar, W.P.(C.) No.11461/2009 Page 2 of 3 however, in the merit list of Army/Navy, Mr.Vivek Bhaskar has been placed below Anurag Mathur. 2. Learned counsel for UPSC, appearing on advance notice, contends that there was an additional test for Airforce, which is Pilot Aptitude Battery Test and on account of performance in the said test, the merit has to be different and merit for Army/Navy can change. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also admits that an additional test for Pilot Aptitude Battery Test was taken for selection to the Airforce. Since, there is an additional test, Pilot Aptitude Battery Test, for the selection to the Airforce , different performance in the Pilot Aptitude Battery Test will/can result into different merit for Army/Navyand for Air force. Consequently, the grievance of the petitioner is without any basis and on the said allegations the merit lists cannot be disallowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the merit list of Army and Navy is the general list having all the candidates and relies on Annexure P-2. However, perusal of the list reveals that the list of Army/Navy is separate than Airforce and for Naval academy. In the circumstances, the pleas raised by the petitioner are not made out. The admission list prepared by UPSC for Army/Navy, Airforce and Naval W.P.(C.) No.11461/2009 Page 3 of 3 academy are not liable to be quashed on the grounds as raised by the petitioner. For foregoing reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. September 14, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘Dev’