Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Avinash Kumar Raut vs Staff Selection Commission on 5 June, 2024
Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, Pre-delivery order in 0.A.530/2015 The pre-delivery order in O.A.530/2015 is put up for concurrence and inputs, if any, (Stiri Krishi Member (A) Hon'ble Ms.Harvinder Kaw Scorvi Member (J) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI. ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.530/2015 Date of Decision: O5.06.2024 Avinash Kumar Raut ee Applicant (Advocate Shri R.G. Walia) Versus Staff Selection Commission, DoPT, New Delhi | Through its Regional Director (NR) & Ors. .. Respondents (Advocate Shri Sachin Patil) CORAM: Ms. Harvinder Kaur Obeori, Member (A) Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A) waar To be referred to the reporter or not? v2. Whether it is to be uploaded? 3. Library. a ry Member (A) 1 OA No.530/2015 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI. ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.530/2015 wthe OD. gune, 2024 Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Shri Krishna, Member (A) Dated this \J Avinash Kumar Raut S/o. Shri Chandra Nath Raut R/o. Old Barganda, Near Usri Bridge Distt. Giridih, Jharkhand - 815 301 Presently residing at Quarters Number 392, Sector 5, Pushp Vihar, MB Road, Saket, Delhi - 110 O17. Applicant (By Advocate Shri R.G. Walia) VERSUS L. Staff Selection Commission Department of Personnel & Training Government of India, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003. Through its Regional Director (NR) 2. Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) Flat No.201, 8, Deepshikha Building, Rajendra Place, New Delhi ~ 110 008. Through its Chairman. 3. deleted 4. Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, - itn 2 OA No.530/2015 Western Region, Pratishtha Bhawan, 1st Floor, South Wing, 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 20. ... Respondents (By Advocate Shri Sachin Patil ) } ORDER Per: Shri Krishna, Member (A)
The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following | reliefs:-
"i.To quash the result dated 30.05.2013 issued and published by respondent No.1 (Annexure A-1) ii. To direct the respondents to issue the appointment letter of the applicant by virtue of the first result declared on dated 08.02.2013 to the post of Tax Assistant in Central Board of Excise and Customs in Tamil Nadu region (Region Code-X). As per Record No.2249 and Roll No. 7204506485, and in the alternative to further provide appointment letter as per the preference state code DKFOEZSVUNGAMLICVPORSXW and preference Post Code IJKLABDEFCGPHONRSTUVYXY2 to further provide seniority with all consequential benefits.
Tii to pass such other appropriate order and direction, which this Hon' ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."3 OA No.530/2015
2. Brief facts as stated by the applicant in the OA are that in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 19.01.2012 issued by Staff selection Commission for Combined Graduate Level Exam.2012(CGLE), the applicant applied to appear in the said examination. The applicant received his admit card and appeared in preliminary test of combined Graduate Level Tier-I Examination- 2012. The paper was divided into four sections (General Science, General Intelligence, English Comprehension, and Quantitative Aptitude) with 50 marks for each section. The applicant passed the preliminary examination. He appeared in the main examination(Tier-II). There were 2 papers in Tier - II examination with 200 marks for each paper of Maths and English. The applicant came to know that he passed the mains Tier-II exam as the cut-off marks for the OBC category in the mains Tier-II exam was 270 (including the marks of the preliminary test and mains Tier-II exam) and the applicant scored 276 marks. The applicant appeared for the skill test on Loe 4 OA No.530/2015 23.11.2012 and qualified in the skill test. The result was revised thereafter and on 30.05.2013, the applicant came to know that his name was not on the list of selected candidates. His name did not figure even in the "withheld" category in the revised result. The applicant through her Sister applied to obtain information under the Right to Information Act to which an ambiguous reply was received on 30.10.2013 in which the applicant's questions were not answered.
2.1 The applicant has submitted that he has successfully "qualified twice in the written examination and also in the skill test but the respondents have deprived him of his rightful opportunity to get employment without any reasonable grounds which amounts to mental harassment of the candidate. It has been submitted that the respondents have informed that since the applicant did not appear in the document verification, therefore, he was not selected in list I, list II, and list ITI of the result and hence was considered for a non-
LEE bom, 5 OA No.530/2015 interview post. He could not secure employment in a non-interview post as he had obtained marks less than the cut-off for OBC Category in a non- interview post. .
3. On notice, the respondents filed their reply. It has been submitted that in the Advertisement notice published in the Employment News/Rozgar Samachaar dated 24-30 March, 2012 for the Combined Graduate Level Examination - 2012, it was made clear that candidates applying for the examination should ensure that they fulfill all. eligibility criteria on the prescribed date. Their admission at all stages of the examination will be purely provisional, subject to their satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions. If, on verification, at any time before or after the written examination and interview, it is found that they do not fulfill any of the eligibility conditions, the Commission will cancel their candidature for the selection.
3.1 It has been submitted that as per the 6 OA No. 3530/2015 initial result declared on 08.02.2013, the applicant's name was in the Reserve List for the "¥" category post in the 'xX' state code (which is Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry). While declaring the results, representations from candidates, if any, were invited by 22.02.2013. Based on the representations so received, some discrepancies were noticed in the result and, therefore, the Commission decided to revise the result incorporating necessary changes. The revised result was published on 30.05.2013 in supersession of the result declared on 08.02.2013.
3.2 It has been submitted that the applicant did not appear for document verification and, therefore, he was considered for the non-interview post but he was not selected for List IV due to being low in merit as the marks of the last selected OBC candidate is 295.5 under State Code 'N' and 'XxX' for post preference 'Y' whereas the marks secured by the applicant is 276. "
7 OA No. 3530/20154. The counsel for the applicant has filed a rejoinder to the reply submitted by the respondents. It has been submitted that the reply submitted by the respondents is not correct as the applicant did appear for the document verification and did file all the necessary documents. It was mentioned in the Admit Card for DEST (Data Entry Skill Test) that the document verification will be completed during CPT (Computer Proficiency Test) or DEST. Accordingly, the applicant before appearing in the DEST presented all the relevant documents which were duly verified by the Authorized Officer of the Staff Selection Commission. As the blank Attestation Forms were not available at that time the applicant was asked to submit the same later. The applicant submitted three sets of Attestation forms duly filled into the Staf£& Selection Commission, Western Region, Mumbai, and a receipt in token was issued to the applicant. The applicant was never asked thereafter to appear for any further document a ; a LE eg Ocoee C- = capac 8 OA No. 530/2015 verification and was never asked to attend the office for removal of deficiency, if any. As such, there was no reason to treat him as absent and to debar him from being considered for any interview post. The applicant having submitted all the documents for verification was entitled to be considered for List III for the post "y" and State Code SX", Without document verification the candidates were not allowed to appear in DEST. This itself proves that applicant's documents were verified and only then he was allowed to appear in the DEST. The applicant having obtained the requisite marks was eligible for appointment which has been denied for wrong reasons of non-verification of documents. This is illogical, arbitrary, and illegal. Therefore, the OA deserves to be allowed on this ground alone with heavy costs.
4.1 It was submitted that the applicant belongs to OBC category~6. He secured 276 marks and has not been considered for appointment.
However, some OBC candidates who secured less 9 OA No.530/2015 marks than the applicant were selected and have been appointed also. A list of 6 such persons who secured less than 276 marks .was submitted. It was submitted that thesé selected and appointed candidates demolish the entire false story of the respondents that the applicant secured lesser marks than the last person appointed. The applicant asked for information under RTI, 2005 asking the reasons as to why the column of document verification in the result declared on 30.05.2013 was left blank. However, no satisfactory information was given. Therefore, it was submitted that the OA should be allowed and the respondents should be directed to appoint the applicant.
4.2 Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Bahadur Sharma (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Union of India and Others, (1998) 9 ScC 458 to say that in absence of specific denial to the averments made by applicants in OA and Rejoinder by respondents, 10 OA No.530/2015 the OA deserves to be allowed. He relied upon para Nos.10, 11, and 12, are quoted herein for ready reference:
"10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the appellant was not at fault in not joining at the transferred place, without giving any finding on that, the Tribunal has deprived the appellant of the salary for the period in question. He also brought to out notice that there was a specific plea, namely, that the appellant could not join at the transferred place in the absence of relieving order and necessary passes. The respondents never came forward to deny that assertion of the appellant. In other words, while the appellant was prepared to join the duty it was the administration which disabled the appellant to join the duty and, therefore, the appellant cannot be blamed.
Il. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents could not deny the position and as a matter of fact, in the counter-affidavit filed instead of directly replying the point it is stated as follows:
"That in reply to para 2(ix) it is submitted that there is no material on record to show that the pass ete. were not issued to the petitioner."
There is no plea positively denying the averments of the appellant in para 2(ix) in the appeal.
12. In the circumstances, we hold that the appellant was not at fault in not joining at the transferred place. Therefore, when he was not at fault he cannot be blamed for the consequences entirely. It is also a fact that he did not work factually for the period in question. "
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has repeated the argument submitted in. the reply 11 OA No.530/2015 affidavit but could not deny the submissions made by thé counsel for applicant in his rejoinder. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 'tase of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, Jee and Others, (2005)9 SCC 779 and relied on para 7 which is quoted below for ready reference:
"7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a@ post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date Jixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage, ete. necessary certificates have to be produced These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. "
6. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material and documents available on record.
"3 fue tg CAFE Cadell 12 OA No.530/2015
7. During final arguments, learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the applicant wags issued an admit card for the Data Entry Skill Test. Documents were verified before the skill test. The respondents first declared results on 08.02.2013 which was changed on 30.05.2013. He submitted that the applicant was not given any information that he did not get the document verified.
8. We find that the applicant was issued an admission certificate vide Roll No.7204506485 (Annexure A-5) page 34 of OA and called for a Data Entry Skill Test on 23.11.2012 at 11.00 am. The admission certificate contains a Note where in Note 2 it is mentioned that "document verification will be completed during CPT/DEST., verificati Al] candidates are hereby informed that irrespective of whether they attend CPT/DEST or not they must attend on the Scheduled date called for CPT/DEST for document verification Sny non-interview posts".
13 OA No, 5330/2015
9. It is not in dispute that the applicant has attended Data Entry Skill Test. However, in the results declared, he was shown in list Iv(reserved list) at serial No.2242. We have perused list III (select list) which is for the Non-Interview Posts. It is seen that Shri Kunal Kumar at serial No.1230 and Shri Ramakant Yadav at serial No.1231, Uday Kumar at 195, Shashi Ranjan at serial 759, Shashi Ranjan at serial No.2813 and Meenakshi Kundra at serial No.2814 were Similarly placed where in the document verification column, against these candidates the document verification has been left blank in the case of Shashi Ranjan and Meenakshi Kundra and also in the case of Ritu Raj Ranjan and Varun Kumar who have been selected and appointed. We further find that six candidates who have been selected have secured marks as underi-
S] Roll No. NAME Cat | TIER 1 TiPl T2P2 | Total No 1 | 2201072907 | RAMAKANT 6 73.75 88.50 | 111.50 | 273.75 YADAV 2 | 1601021564 | UDAY KUMAR | 6 90.25 102.50 | 81.25 274 14 OA No.530/2015 3 220104604 SHASHI 6 92.50 81.50 | 101.50 | 275.50 KUMAR 4 {| 2201011968 | RITU RANJAN | 6 71.25 98.50 | 104.50 | 274.25 5 | 2201012035 VARUN 6 85.25 93.50 92.50 | 271.25 KUMAR 6 | 2201064594 AMIT KUMAR | 6 86 $5.50 103 274.50 ROY A id. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the cut-off marks was 295 is not correct as is apparent from above table. There is no dispute on the point that the applicant has scored 276 marks, therefore, he was higher in merit than the above Six candidates. The marks of the above 6 candidates have not been disputed by the respondents either in their reply or during arguments. The documents verification column against these columns is blank, like that of the applicant. For others, the column is filled with Yes or No and for some it is blank. Applicant in his rejoinder has made specific averment with respect to the above six candidates who belong to OBC and have blank against document verification column and less marks than the applicant. There is no Specific denial by LIAS 15 OA No. 530/2015 respondents to this averment.
11. Given the above facts and the settled law referred to by the applicant,; we find force in the arguments of the counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been unfairly denied an appointment when 6 other candidates who had lesser marks than him and the document verification column was left blank against their names also have been appointed. We are of the view that the applicant deserves to be appointed based on the results declared by the respondents. The respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the candidature of the applicant, if he is otherwise eligible for appointment. In case the applicant is found fit, the respondent-SSC shall recommend the applicant and send his dossier to the user department, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order with intimation to the applicant. The User department Shall complete the necessary formalities of appointment within one month thereafter with all 16 OA No.530/2015 . consequential benefits except back wages.
12. The Original Application is allowed in aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, stand closed. No costs.
(Sted Kri Member (A) ma.
(Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (J)