Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
S/O Sh. Sher Singh vs Union Of India on 11 September, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI NO.1299/2014 OA No.1300/2014, OA No.1409/2014 OA No.1413/2014 OA No.1822/2014 OA No.1842/2014 OA No.2612/2014 MA No.2224/2014 OA No.2613/2014 MA No.2226/2014 OA No.2823/2014 OA No.2833/2014 OA No.2837/2014 OA No.2838/2014 OA No.2846/2014 OANo.2856/2014 OA No.2864/2014 OA No.2868/2014 OA No.2869/2014 OA No.2870/2014 OA No.2871/2014 OA No.2872/2014 OA No.2876/2014 OA No.2877/2014 OA No.2882/2014 OA No.2884/2014 OA No.2896/2014 OA No.2968/2014 OA No.3049/2014 OA No.3057/2014 OA No.3066/2014 OA No.3101/2014 OA No.3119/2014 OA No.2897/2014 OA No.2899/2014 OA No.2900/2014 OA No.2903/2014 OA No.2910/2014 OA No.2939/2014 & OA No.2950/2014 NEW DELHI THIS THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014 HONBLE MR. ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER (A) HONBLE MR. RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER (J) OA NO.1299/2014 Mahesh (2201528599), S/o Sh. Sher Singh, Vill PO- Dalanwas, Haryana. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Manish Kumar proxy for Mr. Harish Pandey) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through Secretary, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 3. The Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.1300/2014 Kavita (2201112886), D/o Sh. Kishan, Vill- Bhowapur, PO- Rathdhana, Sonipat. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Manish Kumar proxy for Mr.Harish Pandey) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.1409/2014 Varun Singh, Age-25 yrs., Roll No.2201552597 S/o Sh. Ranbir Singh, VPO-Bandh, The-Israna, Panipat, Haryana-132107. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 4. Union of India through The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi-1 5. Central Board of Excise and Customs through its Chairman, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.1413/2014 Rajneesh, Age-26 years S/o Sh. Ajit Singh, 254, Koko Bagri, VPO-Karala, Delhi-110 081. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.1822/2014 Deepak Tomar, Age-26 years (Fresh Appointment) S/o Sh. Dharampal Singh, VPO Loyan, Malakpur, District Baghpat, State Uttar Pradesh. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.1842/2014 Sandeep Kumar Aged about 31 years, S/o Sh. Dafe Singh Roll No.2201119635, R/o Ward No.2, VPO Kheri Bura, Tehsil-Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani, Haryana-127306. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra) VERSUS 1. Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman, Headquarters, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Staff Selection Commission Through its Director, Northern Region, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2612/2014 MA NO.2224/2014 Rohit Kumar (2405017332), Age 26 Yrs, S/o Sh. Surinder Kumar, H.No.36/2, Railway Road, Sampla, Rohtak, Haryana. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Manish Kumar proxy for Mr. Harish Pandey) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through Secretary, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 3. The Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2613/2014 MA NO.2226/2014 Pradeep Kumar (2201017788), Age 27 Yrs., S/o Sh. Satpal Singh, H.No.133, Vill Auchandi, Outer Delhi, Delhi-110039. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Manish Kumar proxy for Mr. Harish Pandey) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through Secretary, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 3. The Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2823/2014 Manjeet Tomar, S/o Sh. Chaman Singh, Roll No.2201093885, Age 29, Subject Appointment, R/o VPO Shikohpur, Teh. Baghpat, PO Station Baraut, U.P. 250611. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2833/2014 Vishnu, S/o Sh. Ram Mehar, Roll No.2201030359, Age 27, Subject Appointment, R/o VPO Ugalan, The. Hansi, Hisar, Haryana 125033. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2837/2014 Sandeep Antil, S/o Sh. Atter Singh, Roll No.2201152219, Age 28, Subject Appointment, R/o Atter Singh (Ex-Sarpanch), Pana bhada, VPO Murthal, Sonepat, Haryana 131027. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2838/2014 Sudhir Kumar, S/o Sh. Jaikishan, Roll No.2201017972, Age______, Subject Appointment, R/o VPO Bhageshwari, The.CH. Dadri, Bhiwani, Haryana 127307. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2846/2014 Rahul Beniwal, S/o Sh. K.K. Beniwal, Roll No.2201121153, Age 29, Subject Appointment, R/o A-502, Hextax Commune, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2856/2014 Neeraj Kumar, Age-25 years S/o Sh. Rambhaj, H.No.1022/31, Chotu Ram Chowk, Gohana Road, Sonipat, Haryana. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 4. Central Board of Direct Taxes Through its Chairman CBDT, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2864/2014 Vikas Hooda, Aged about 35 years, S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh Hooda, R/o Ward No.9, C/o Pratap School, Kharkhoda, Sonepat, Haryana. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj) VERSUS UOI & Ors. Through: 1. The Secretary, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, 1st Floor, South Wing, Pratistha Bhawan, 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 4. The Chairman, CBDT, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2868/2014 Sandeep, Aged about 24 years, S/o Sh. Kaptan Singh, R/o VPO Rohna Tehsil Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj) VERSUS UOI & Ors. Through: 1. The Secretary, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, 1st Floor, South Wing, Pratistha Bhawan, 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 4. The Chairman, CBDT, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2869/2014 Ajay Bhardwaj, Age-27 yrs., S/o Surender Kumar Sharma, R/o R-44, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, West Delhi-110 059. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 4. Central Board of Direct Taxes Through its Chairman ARA Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan Ext., New Delhi-110055. 5. Member (P&V) (Maharashtra Region), Central Board of Direct Taxes, Room No.146-E, North Block, New Delhi-1 Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2870/2014 Jai Bhagwan, S/o Sh. Anoop Singh, Roll No.2201029734, Age 27, Subject Appointment, R/o VPO Rohnat, Teh. Bawani Khera, Bhiwani, Haryana 127035. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2871/2014 Sanjay Balyan, Age-27 yrs., S/o Jagdish Prasad, R/o H.No.165, Tajpur Kalan, Delhi-110 036. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 4. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2872/2014 Hemant Dagar, S/o Sh. Ramesh Chander, Roll No.2201518359, Age 25, subject Appointment, R/o H.No.470, VPO Issapur, New Delhi 110073. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2876/2014 Inder Singh Dagar, S/o Sh. Rajender Singh, Age 25, Subject Appointment, R/o VPO Issapur, New Delhi 110073. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2877/2014 Yashashvi Kaushik, S/o Sh. Mahavir Kaushik, Roll No.2201552511, Age______, Subject Appointment, R/o H.No.470, VPO Issapur, New Delhi 110073. Applicant (BY Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2882/2014 Monika, Age-26 years, D/o Sh. Satbir Singh, House No.790, Main Road Near Pole No.27, Village & Post Office-Chhawla, New Delhi-71. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 4. Central Board of Direct Taxes Through its Chairman CBEC, North Block, New Delhi Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2884/2014 Kamal Kaushik, Age-26 years s/o Sh. Anant Ram, House No.259, Village-Sultan Pur Dabas, PO-Pooth Khurd, Delhi. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2896/2014 Vikram Kumar Meena, Age-26 years S/o Sh. Kishan Lal Meena, E-198, Moti Bagh-I, New Delhi-110021. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 4. Central Board of Direct Taxes Through its Chairman ARA Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan Ext., New Delhi-110055. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2968/2014 Manender Tomar, Age-26 years S/o Sh. Sompal Singh, VPO-Malakpur Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3049/2014 Sanjay Singh, Age-26 years S/o Sh. Badan Singh, The-Ch. Dadri, District-Bhiwani, Haryana-127030. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3057/2014 Ms. Bharti Rana, Age-24 years, D/o Sh. Krishan Rana R/o H. No.257, V.P.O. Siraspur, Delhi. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra) VERSUS 1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Headquarters, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Northern Region, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3066/2014 Sandeep Kumar, S/o Sh. Ladu Ram, Roll No.2408005419, Age 26, Subject Appointment, R/o VPO Kharlan, Tehsil Rania, Sirsa, Haryana-125076. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3101/2014 Parveen Kumar, Age-27 years S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Khatri, H.No.49-C, Pana Udyan, Narela, Delhi-40. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 4. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3119/2014 Pradeep Kumar, age- 28 years, S/o Sh. Karan Singh R/o V.P.O. Dhandlan, Tehsil Beri, Distt. Jhajjar, State Haryana-124107. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra) VERSUS 1. Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman, Headquarters, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Staff Selection Commission Through its Director, Northern Region, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2897/2014 Rohit Mathur, Age-27 years S/o Sh. Ram Singh, H.No.1260, Near Dada Mandu, VPO-Karala, North West, Delhi-81. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 4. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2899/2014 Manjeet Pal Singh, Age-26 years S/o Sh. Harpal Singh, House No.613, VPO-Bijwasan, Nayak Mohalla, New Delhi-110 061. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2900/2014 Rajesh Kumar, Age-30 yrs., S/o Balwan Singh, R/o Village Beholi, Tehsil Samalkha, Distt Panipat, Haryana-1321010. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Arun Khatri) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 2. Staff Selection Commission Northern Range, Through its Regional Director, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 3. Staff Selection Commission Northern Range, Through its Under Secretary, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 4. The Secretary, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Arun Khatri) OA NO.2903/2014 Vinay Rathee, S/o Sh. Vijay Singh, Roll No.2201558350, Age 26, Subject Appointment, R/o H.No.1199, Sector-3, Sonipat Road, Rohtak, Haryana. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2910/2014 Vipin, S/o Sh. Tejveer Singh, Roll No.2201010283, Age 27, Subject Appointment, R/o VPO Mavikalan, Tehsil Baraut, Baghpat, U.P.-250606. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2939/2014 Jasbir Saroha, Age-26 years S/o Sh. Ramphal Saroha, House No.3, Pocket-9, Sector-24, North West Delhi, Delhi-110 085. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 4. Central Board of Excise and Customs through its Chairman, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2950/2014 Sandeep, Age-25 years S/o Sh. Rajender Singh, H.No.169, VPO-Kharkara, The-Hansi, Hissar, Haryana-125042. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) :ORDER: MR. ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER (A):
MA No.2224/2014 has been filed in OA No.2612/2014 seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in filing the OA. For the reasons stated, MA No.2224/2014 is allowed.
2. MA No.2226/2014 has been filed in OA No.2613/2014 seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in filing the OA. For the reasons stated in MA No.2226/2014 condonation of delay is allowed.
3. All these OAs were taken up for hearing on the request of counsel for both parties on the ground that the cause of action and reliefs claimed by the applicants in all these OAs are identical. OA No.1299/2014 has been adopted as a lead case for the purpose of proper adjudication of all these matters.
4. The applicants in these OAs are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not declaring them selected for appointment on the basis of merit in the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2012 in spite of securing more marks than the last selected candidate. They are further aggrieved by the action of the respondents for cancellation of their candidature, not complying with the orders of the Tribunal and issuing the discriminatory show cause notice dated 15.01.2014 (in the lead case).
5. Very briefly facts of the case are that in pursuance of the Advertisement issued by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for holding Combined Graduate Level Examination-2012 (CGLE-2012), applicants applied for the said post as per the procedure in the Advertisement, since they fulfilled all the eligibility conditions prescribed in the advertisement. The respondents ensured fool-proof system in the examination and took various steps for the same. The said examination consisted of Tier-I and Tier-II Examinations conducted on 01.07.2012 & 08.07.2012. Re-examination of certain candidates was held on 04.09.2012. Applicants were called for interview and skill test held on different dates between December-2012 and January-2013, after which the respondents were required to declare the final result of CGLE-2012. Final result was declared on 08.02.2013 on the basis of their merits but the results of some of the candidates were withheld without disclosing any reasons. Since nothing was done, the applicants filed OAs for declaration of their results and vide order dated 15.04.2013 respondents were directed to declare their results within four weeks from 15.04.2013. Suddenly, revised results were issued by the respondents, without recording any reasons. Revised results were issued on 30.05.2013 and results of 456 candidates were withheld, out of which only 186 candidates have been cleared. Applicants received show cause notice (dated 27.05.2013 in the lead case), which was challenged before this Tribunal and vide order dated 22.11.2013 the show cause notices were quashed with liberty to respondents to issue fresh individual show cause notice by giving full details of their alleged malpractices/copying and detailed modus operandi adopted by the respondents in coming to the said conclusion. The Tribunal further directed that reply to the show cause notice to be issued was to be considered and final speaking and reasoned orders were to be passed by the respondent-SSC in accordance with law. The Tribunal also directed that the entire exercise shall be completed not later than 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order.
6. Applicants have contended in these OAs that without complying with the order of the Tribunal, respondents issued another notice (dated 15.01.2014 in the lead case) without giving any details as required by the Tribunal. Some of the show cause notices were replied but the respondents did not give any decision till the filing of the OAs. They have challenged the action of the respondents in issuing show cause notice as vague and baseless and unwarranted in law.
7. Various grounds have been stated in these OAs to challenge the impugned show cause notice.
8. Counter affidavits have been filed in many of these OAs by the respondent-SSC referring to the judgment of the Tribunal dated 22.11.2013 in OA No.1352/2013 along with connected OAs. In terms of the liberty granted by the Tribunal in that OA, fresh show cause notice was issued on the basis of Post Examination Analysis conducted by proven experts in this area through outside agency, and after having arrived at incontrovertible and reliable evidence of the applicants having indulged in malpractice/copying with other candidates, the impugned show cause notice had been issued. It is further stated in these OAs that no other proof apart from what has already been communicated to the applicants are available with the SSC, which are on the basis of the Post Examination Analysis. The applicant has furnished his reply (in the lead case) but before any decision could be taken by the SSC on the basis of the reply, the present OA has been filed, which is premature and is fit to be rejected on this ground alone. It is contended by SSC that no case has been made out for grant of any relief in the OAs. It has been submitted that the OA be dismissed and any interim order passed be vacated and further that the respondent-SSC may also be allowed to dispose of the show cause notices mentioned above.
9. The matter was heard today and the counsel of all the applicants in these OAs argued that identical matters were decided by the Tribunal in OA No.930/2014 (Sudesh & Ors.). Respondents counsel Mr. S.M. Arif was also heard in all these OAs.
10. We have perused the pleadings and documents on record (in the lead case) and have given anxious consideration to the arguments placed by both parties.
11. The reliefs sought in this OA are as follows (similar reliefs have been sought in the connected OAs):-
i) Quash and set aside the impugned Notice dated 15.01.2014 and withholding his result as well as any kind of action on the basis of impugned Notice is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
ii) Direct the respondents to declare the Applicant as selected as per their merit list and to issue appointment letter of the Applicant with the seniority from the date of appointment of first candidate of Combined Graduate Level Examination 2012.
iii) Any further Order as this Honble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
12. We have noticed that a similar issue with respect to the second show cause notice issued to applicants in the CGLE-2012 Examination held by the SSC was decided by the Tribunal in OA No.930/2014 along with other OAs vide order dated 30.07.2014. In paras 39 & 40 the Tribunal concluded as follows:-
39 The present show cause notice, as we have observed above, is vague and does not provide sufficient material or evidence or definite charge or charges along with the material to substantiate the same. In the absence of such a clear-cut position, the applicants would be deprived of the opportunity to counter the allegations and to defend him. Such was the view taken by the Honble High Court of Delhi in Staff Selection Commission and others Versus Rakesh Kumar Yadav in W.P. (C) No.7416/2013 (supra).
40. On the basis of the aforenoted, we find that for the same reasons, as contained in the order of the Tribunal dated 22.11.2013 (ibid) and as also held by the Co-ordinate Bench at Allahabad vide Order dated 06.05.2014 (ibid), the impugned second show cause notice is not fit to be sustained.
13. The Tribunal also noted in paras 46 and 47 of the order that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the respondents to deal with the reply to the show cause notice since such an exercise, in any case, would not lead to any meaningful conclusion. Paras 46 and 47 are reproduced below:-
46. From the aforenoted chronology, it is clear that more than nearly two years and four months have already elapsed since the publication of notice of CGLE-2012. Such a long period of litigation as above has delayed, their appointment. Such delay would not only adversely effect the career of the applicants but has kept them in total uncertainty. Any further delay cannot therefore be allowed.
47. We do not thus find any reason to permit the respondents to pass an order on the reply to the show cause notice received from the applicants in these OAs, especially when we have observed that no useful purpose would be served by doing so.
14. The Tribunal ultimately quashed and set aside the impugned second show cause notice and passed the following order.
48. In view of the aforenoted reasons, we hold that the impugned second show cause notice dated 28.01.2014 (in the lead OA) as well as the show cause notice issued to all applicants in the connected OAs, are not fit to be legally sustained. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the same. Consequently, the respondents are directed to declare the result of all applicants in these OAs and to allocate them the Service for which they have been found eligible on the basis of pure merit, if they have been found successful. We clarify that while doing so the respondents shall take action fully in consonance with the rules and instructions governing the subject while declaring the result and for allocating the service for which the applicants are found successful on the basis of merit. The afore-noted action shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. We observe that these OAs are squarely covered by the aforenoted decision of the Tribunal dated 30.07.2014 in OA No.930/2014 (Sudesh & Ors.) along with other connected OAs. We are, therefore, of the view that the present set of applicants are entitled to the same relief as granted in para-48 of the judgment in OA No.930/2014. Accordingly, impugned show cause notice dated 15.01.2014 in the lead case as well as in the other connected OAs not being legally sustainable, are quashed and set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to declare the results of all applicants in these OAs and to allocate them the Service for which they have been found eligible on the basis of pure merit, if they have been found successful. We clarify that while doing so the respondents shall take action fully in consonance with the rules and instructions governing the subject while declaring the result and for allocating the service, for such of these applicants who are found successful on the basis of merit. Respondents shall ensure that the afore-noted action is completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. All these OAs are allowed by this common order to the extent indicated above along with the aforenoted directions. Any interim order passed in these OAs shall stand vacated with the passing of this order. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs.
17. Let a copy of this order be placed in each case file.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Ashok Kumar) Member (J) Member (A) /jk/