Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vikas Singh Tomar S/O Dharampal Singh vs Delhi Police on 10 December, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.4110/2012 Monday, this the 10th day of December 2012 Honble Shri G George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Smt. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) 1. Vikas Singh Tomar s/o Dharampal Singh r/o Vill. Khaila Post Rataul, Khekra, Baghpat, UP 2. Pushpender Sharma s/o Madan Lal Sharma r/o Civil Line Colony Bharatpur, Raj 3. Ram Kumar Singh s/o Janak Singh r/o A-207, Gali No.7, Meet Nagar, Delhi-94 4. Htender Kumar s/o Shri Dhani Ram r/o Vill. Chanpura, Kharkoda, Meerut, UP 5. Kamal Kant s/o Pritam Chand r/o E-668, Gali No.21, Ashok Nagar, Delhi-93 6. Akash Kumar Tyagi s/o Mahesh Chand Tyagi r/o VPO Kaili, Hapur, Meerut, UP 7. Omprakash s/o Hoshiyar Singh r/o D-739, Gali No.3, Ashok Nagar, Shadra, Delhi-93 8. Karamveer s/o Raj Singh r/o 46, VPO Mohammadpur, Delhi-36 9. Suresh Singh s/o Shiv Charan Singh r/o Vill Aurangpur Jogipur, (Nausangpur), PO Basantpur, Distt. Bijnor UP 246725 10. Suresh Yadav s/o Chaju Ram r/o VPO Majari Kdan, Teh. Behror, Alwar Raj 11. Shiv Bhagwan Yadav s/o Bhadur Singh Yadav Vill Makrawa, PO Matawas, Teh. Kotkasim, Alwar Raj 12. Ghansi Ram Meena s/o Chheetar Mal Meena r/o Maharaj Pura, Teh. Dausa, Distt. Dausa (Raj) 13. Devender Kumar s/o Vijay Ram r/o 79-B, DDA Flat, Masjid Moth, Delhi 14. Arvind Giri s/o Chaman Giri VPO Dadra, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh ..Applicants (By Advocate: Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma) Versus Delhi Police Though Commissioner of Police PHQ, ITO, Delhi ..Respondent (By Advocate: Ms. Renu George) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri G George Paracken:
This Original Application has been filed by the applicants seeking the following reliefs:
i) To scrap the recruitment process of Recruitment of temporary constable (Driver) in Delhi police 2012. Because so many irregularities present in this recruitment process.
ii) To give the direction to Delhi Police for consider the applicants for fresh PE & MT as per Honble CAT order 05.11.2012 and public notice dt. 07.11.2012 and conduct the race of the applicants and may resume its selection procedure as per advt.
iii) The result / recruitment process may be with held or suspend till the pendency of this Original application before Honble Central Administrative Tribunal.
iv) Any other relief, which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the applicant.
2. It is stated that the applicants herein are similarly placed as those applicants in the case of Sandeep Kumar & others v. Delhi Police & others (OA-3520/2012) decided on 5.11.2012. The issue considered in the aforesaid OA was that the candidates were required to qualify the 1600 meters race within a maximum time of 8 minutes as per the Notification issued by the Respondent-Delhi Police but at the time of test, the duration of time to finish the race was reduced. Some of the candidates accepted the change and they appeared. Some of them qualified and some of them failed. Some of the candidates did not participate at all due to the sudden change announced by the respondent at the spot. When the aforesaid case came up before this Bench, we directed that those who did not participate shall be given one more chance. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:
6. We have heard both the learned counsel and perused the record on file.
7. It is a fact that the advertisement dated 2.06.2012 indicated different times for qualifying the 1600 mtrs race for different age levels but subsequently a corrigendum was issued on 9th and 10th October, 2012, after the PET had started on 8.10.2012. As far as the candidates who appeared for the PET on 8.10.2012 are concerned, it has been clarified by the learned counsel for respondents that an oral announcement was made stating that the time for 1600 mtrs race was 7 minutes for all the candidates. The fact that the oral announcement was made regarding this on 8.10.2012 has also been mentioned in the OA. Though the applicants in the OA have stated that the first batch of candidates in each round was allowed to complete the race in 8 minutes, this fact has categorically been denied by the respondents. We are aware that in this matter a mistake has been made by the respondents while issuing the advertisement which they have tried their best to correct by issuing corrigendum in newspapers dated 9th and 10th October, 2012 as well as making oral announcements at the time of PET on 8.10.2012 that the race has to be completed in 7 minutes. They have stated that the same time of 7 minutes was kept for all the candidates for PET and 12580 candidates have qualified and have been called for the written test on 11.11.2012. They have fairly conceded that in view of overall facts, if any candidate who has not participated on 8.10.2012 is willing to appear for PET on any date prior to 11.11.2012, the respondents would ensure the same but they are not willing to consider the cases of those candidates who took the test on 8.10.2012 and did not qualify as it would amount to giving second chance to some persons.
8. There are two options before us, one to cancel the PET held so far and direct the respondents to hold the test again and second to allow the offer of the respondents to those applicants who were scheduled to take the test on 8.10.2012 but did not participate due to time being changed and who have filed the present OA.
9. We are satisfied that the respondents, once they realized their mistake, took all remedial measures that were possible to take for candidates who appeared for PET that they are judged by the same yardstick. But because of the error in the advertisement, there are some candidates who did not participate in the PET on 8.10.2012. We are also aware of the fact that 752 vacancies have to be filled for which 12580 candidates have already qualified in the PET. Therefore, cancelling the already conducted PET and doing it again does not seem to be a good alternative. In our view, an opportunity to participate in the PET must be ensured for those who could not participate due to error in the advertisement.
10. In view of the above, we direct the respondents to hold a fresh PET before 10.11.2012 and allow those of the applicants of this OA or any other persons who are not before us, who appeared for the PET on 8.10.2012 but did not participate due to confusion regarding time for qualifying the test. It would not be fair to give this opportunity to those candidates who appeared for the PET on 8.10.2012 after the announcement had been made that time for qualifying the 1600 mtrs race would be 7 minutes and who did not qualify. With the above directions, the OA is disposed of.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants in this O.A. was that the applicants are those who refused to participate in the test. However, today when the matter was taken up for consideration, he could not substantiate that the applicants were present on the spot on 8.10.2012, when the test was originally held. Moreover, the respondents have also, on our direction, examined the case of the applicants and issued letter dated 8.12.2012 bringing out the factual position, based on their record. The operative part of the said letter reads as under:-
In this regard, it is submitted that in compliance of directions dated 05.11.2012 passed by the Honble CAT in OA No.3520/2012 Sandeep Kumar & Others Vs. Delhi Police & Others, a Board was constituted by Delhi Police Headquarters vide No.5306-09/Rectt. Cell (AC-II)/PHQ dated 06.11.2012 for conducting the PE&MT of petitioners of above-said OA (Annexure R-1). All the 26 candidates/petitioners of OA were called for appearing in the PET process for the post of Constable (Dvr.) in Delhi Police on 09.11.2012 at PTS/Wazirabad, Delhi. The Advocate of the petitioners in the above-said OA, Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma was also informed vide this office letter No.21791/Rectt. Cell (R-IV)/NPL dated 07.11.2012 that most of the candidates have been informed through telephonic call on their available mobiles in record and he was also requested to inform all the petitioners of the said OA to be present on the scheduled date & time for their PET at PTS/Wazirabad (Annexure R-2). SMS were also sent to the available mobiles of all the petitioners of OA No.3520/2012.
Out of these 26 candidates subjected in OA, only 19 candidates had collected their Admit Card for PE&MT on 09.11.2012. The receiving of these 19 candidates who had collected their Admit Card has been marked as Annexure R-3. Out of these 19 candidates, only 14 candidates appeared in the PE&MT on 09.11.2012 and rest of the 05 candidates do not participate in the PE&MT process for the reasons best known to them. Out of the 14 candidates who were appeared in PE&MT, the following 03 candidates had been declared qualified and accordingly they were issued the Admission Card for Written Examination held on 11.11.2012 at PTS/Wazirabad, Delhi.
07 candidates subjected to OA No.3520/2012 did not collect their Admit Cards on 09.11.2012. The Admit Cards of these 07 candidates for 09.11.2012 and marked as Annexure R-4.
Further, it will not be out of place to mention that due to confusion of time on 08.10.2012, total 164 candidates were called again for their PE&MT on 18.10.2012 at PTS/Wazirabad and out of these 164 candidates, 125 candidates received the Admit Cards and appeared in the PE&MT held on 18.10.2012. The remaining 39 candidates did not collect their Admit Cards on 18.10.2012. Accordingly, in compliance of directions in OA No.3520/2012, the Admit Cards were again prepared for these remaining 39 candidates for 09.11.2012 and announcement were made time & again for these 39 candidates. After announcement only 01 candidate, namely, Vinod Kumar (Roll No.4000515) came forward and received the Admit Card for PE&MT on 09.11.2012 (Annexure R-5) and participated in the PE&MT process but could not qualify.
Moreover, the written test for the recruitment to the post of Constable (Dvr.) in Delhi Police has already been held on 11.11.2012 in which 12,583 candidates were called to appear. The result of the written test is under process.
4. In view of the above position, we are of the considered view that the applicants case is not covered by the aforesaid order of this Tribunal. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this case and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Smt. Manjulika Gautam ) ( G George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
/vb/