Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pritam Singh vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 23 April, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A.NO.1567 OF 2013 This the 23rd day of April, 2015 CORAM: HONBLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER & HONBLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. Pritam Singh Aged about 33 years, S/o Sh.Mahadev Singh, R/o T-609/2A, Gali No.7, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi 11008 Applicant (By Advocate: Ms. Meghna Nagpal) Vs. 1. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through its Secretary, FC-18, Industrial Area, Karkardooma, Delhi 110092 2. Services Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, Through its Secretary, Delhi Secretariat Comlex, 7th Level, B-Wing & 5th Level, A-Wing, I.P.Estate, Delhi 110092 3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, through its Chief Secretary, 5, Sham Nath Marg, New Delhi 110054 Respondents (By Advocate: Ms.Harvinder Oberoi) .. ORDER Raj Vir Sharma, Member(J):
In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
a) Pass an order directing the respondent no.2 to recall the order dated 17.3.2011 revising the requisition issued to DSSSB and directing it to fill up the posts of Grade-II (DASS);
b) Pass an order directing the respondent no.1 to declare the result of the Part-II examination (descriptive) conducted separately for the VH category qualified candidates on 07.09.2008 for the post of Grade II (DASS) under post code 059/06.
c) Pass an order granting just compensation to the applicant by the respondents for an inordinate delay in declaration of result w.r.t. Part II examination (descriptive) conducted separately for the VH category qualified candidates on 07.09.2008 for the Post of Grade-II (DASS) under post code 059/06 and the subsequent closure of recruitment in VH category for the said post;
d) Pass any other and such other order as this tribunal may deemfit in the interest of justice.
2. The applicant is a Visually Handicapped (VH) person. Respondent no.1-DSSSB issued Advertisement No.04/2006 for recruitment to different posts, including 227 posts of Grade II (DASS) in the Services Department, Government of NCT of Delhi (respondent no.2) under Post Code 59/06. The breakups of the said 227 posts of Grade II (DASS) in the Services Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, were indicated in the Advertisement as UR-102, OBC-82, SC-22 & ST-21 including EXSM-22, Sports Persons-11, PH(O)-2, VH-2 and D&D-1. The applicant had applied as a VH candidate for the post of Grade II (DASS) under Post Code 59/06 of Advertisement No.04/2006, and was assigned Roll No.59154864. The recruitment examination comprised (a) Part I(Objective) Examination, and (b) Part II (Descriptive)Examination. The candidates, who qualified in the Part I (Objective) Examination, were short-listed for appearing in the Part II (Descriptive) Examination. Respondent no.1-DSSSB provided information to the applicant under the RTI Act that age relaxation benefit could not be provided to some of the VH candidates, including the applicant, owing to incorrect feeding in the scanning process, and as a consequence they were found over-aged and were not short-listed for appearing in Part II Examination; that the applicant had secured 101.50 marks in the Part I (Objective)Examination; that the last General category candidate had secured 102.75 marks; and that the last candidate in VH Category had secured 64.75 marks, who were short-listed for appearing in the Part II (Descriptive) Examination held on 19.8.2007. Therefore, respondent no.1-DSSSB published a result notice declaring the left out VH candidates, including the applicant, to have been short-listed for appearing in the Part II (Descriptive) Examination to be held on 7.9.2008. The applicant and other PH candidates appeared in the Part II (Descriptive) Examination on 7.9.2008, but the result of the said examination was not published. Respondent no.1-DSSSB also failed to provide any information under the RTI Act as to why the result of the said examination was not published. While the matter stood thus, respondent no.1-DSSSB issued Advertisement No.4/2009 for recruitment to different categories of posts, including 231 (UR-94, SC-38, ST-21, OBC-78) [including EXSM-15, Sports Person-08, and PH-8 (OH-3, VH-2, HH-3) posts of Grade II (DASS) in the Services Department-II, under Post Code 90/09. Therefore, the applicant made a representation dated 25.11.2011 before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India. The respondent no.1-DSSSB submitted a report dated 10.4.2012 before the court of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, stating that the recruitment process for the post of Grade-II (DASS) under Post Code 59/06, Advertisement No.04/2006, had been closed. Respondent no.2-Services Department, vide its letter dated 1.2.2013, informed the applicant that the vacancies in the post of Grade II (DASS) advertised under Post Code 90/09, Advertisement No.4/2009, included the 2 unfilled vacancies for VH category, which were earlier notified under Post Code 59/06, Advertisement No.04/2006. Being unsuccessful to get his grievance redressed, the applicant filed the present O.A. praying for the reliefs, as referred to earlier. It is contended by the applicant that the respondent no.1-DSSSB, or for that matter respondent no.2-Services Department, cannot be allowed to take advantage of their fault in the recruitment process conducted pursuant to Advertisement No.04/2006, Post Code 59/06, and that he, along with other VH candidates, having appeared in the Part II (Descriptive) Examination on 7.9.2008, respondent no.1-DSSSB, or for that matter respondent no.2-Services Department, has acted arbitrarily and illegally in not publishing the result of the said Part II (Descriptive)Examination and taking consequential action. It is also contended by the applicant that the respondents have also acted illegally and arbitrarily in issuing Advertisement No.04/2009, Post Code 90/09, for recruitment against the said the two vacancies of Grade II (DASS) meant for VH category, which were included in the Advertisement No.04/2006, Post Code 59/06.
3. Opposing the O.A., a counter reply, verified by one Mr.Prashant Raghav, Dy.Secretary (CC-II), DSSSB (respondent no.1), was filed on behalf of all the respondents. The respondents have stated that cause of action arose in January 2009 when fresh Advertisement was issued and, therefore, the O.A. filed on 26.4.2013, after delay three and a half years, is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is stated that the DSSSB, being the recruiting agency of GNCTD of Delhi, is mandated to process the selection for various Groups C and B posts. As per the requisition of the Services Department, the DSSSB, vide its Advertisement No.04/06, under Post Code 59/06, had notified 227 vacancies (UR-102, SC-22, ST-21, and OBC 82, including EXSM-22, SPORT-22, PH-2, VH-2 and DD-01). Part I (Objective) and Part II (Descriptive) Examinations were held on 8.7.2007 and 19.8.2007 respectively. As per result of Part I (Objective) Examination, 20 VH category candidates were short-listed for 02 vacancies for VH category, whose result of Part I (Objective) Examination was declared on 25.7.2007. After conduct of the Part II (Descriptive) Examination, discrepancy in short-listing of candidates in VH category was found, and some of the VH candidates, including the applicant, were not short-listed on the ground of their being over-aged. Thereafter, a further result notice was published short-listing those left out VH candidates, and Part II (Descriptive)Examination for those left out VH candidates was scheduled to be held on 7.9.2008. Respondent no.2-Services Department, vide its letter dated 3.9.2008, directed respondent no.1-DSSSB not to conduct Part II (Descriptive) Examination for the left out VH candidates without their consent/approval. It has been stated by the respondents that on 7.9.2008 the applicant and others appeared in the Part II (Descriptive) Examination pursuant to the Advertisement No.04/2006, Post Code 59/06. The respondent no.1-DSSSB, vide their letters dated 27.1.2012, 2.3.2012 and 16.3.2012, asked for clarification from the Services Department as to whether they would accept two VH candidates to be nominated for appointment against the two vacancies meant for VH category. Respondent no.2-Services Department, vide their letter dated 16.3.2012, informed respondent no.1-DSSSB that the matter had been examined by them, and that the nomination of two VH candidates could not be accepted as they had already forwarded a fresh requisition on 3.9.2009 for filling up 237 vacancies in the post of Grade II (DASS), which included the two unfilled 02 VH vacancies of the previous notification. Since no examination was conducted by the respondent no.1-DSSSB pursuant to the Advertisement No.04/2009, the respondent no.2-Services Department, vide its letter dated 27.2.2013, forwarded a fresh requisition to the respondent no.1-DSSSB for recruitment against 331 vacancies in the post of Grade II (DASS), which included 03 vacancies for VH category. In the above view of the matter, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reply along with copy of the Advertisement No.3/13, Post Code 40/13, wherein 313 vacancies in the post of Grade II (DASS) in the Services Department were indicated. The breakups of the said 313 vacancies were stated as UR 185, OBC 59, SC 50, ST-19 including PH (OH-04, HH-04, VH-06), EXSM-31, Sports Person 16. It was also mentioned therein that the vacancies for disabled persons will be subject to the directions of the Honble Court in OA No.1567/2013, Pritam vs. GNCT of Delhi and Ors.
5. We have perused the pleadings and have heard Ms.Meghna Nagpal, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Ms.Harvinder Oberoi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following admitted positions emerge:
(i) The applicant, as a VH candidate, applied for the post of Grade II (DASS) in the respondent No.2-Services Department, pursuant to the Advertisement No.04/2006, Post Code 59/06, issued by the respondent no.1-DSSSB.
(ii) In the Advertisement No.04/2006, Post Code 59/06, the breakups of the 227 vacancies in the post of Grade II (DASS) in the respondent no.2-Services Department were indicated as UR-102, OBC-82, SC-22 & ST-21, including EXSM-22, Sports Persons-11, PH(O)-2, VH-2 and D&D-1.
(iii) The recruitment examination comprised (a) Part I(Objective) Examination, and (b) Part II (Descriptive)Examination. The candidates, who qualified in the Part I (Objective) Examination, were short-listed for appearing in the Part II (Descriptive) Examination.
(iv) Part I (Objective) and Part II (Descriptive) Examinations were held on 8.7.2007 and 19.8.2007 respectively. As per result of Part I (Objective) Examination published on 25.7.2007, 20 VH candidates were short-listed for 02 vacancies for VH category.
(v) Subsequently, it was found by the respondent-DSSSB that owing to incorrect feeding in the scanning process, the applicant and some other VH candidates were found over-aged and were not short-listed for appearing in the Part II (Descriptive) Examination on 19.8.2007, as per the result notice dated 25.7.2007, although they applied for selection and appeared in the Part I (Objective)Examination as VH candidates and secured more marks than the last VH candidate who was short-listed for appearing in the Part II (Descriptive) Examination held on 19.8.2007.
(vi) Respondent no.1 published further result notice and short-listed the applicant and other VH candidates for appearing in the Part II (Descriptive) Examination on 7.9.2008. Accordingly, the applicant and other VH candidates appeared in the Part II (Descriptive) Examination on 7.9.2008.
(vi) Respondent no.2-Services Department was aware of the facts of discrepancy in the result notice published by the respondent no.1-DSSSB on 25.7.2007, subsequent result notice short-listing the applicant and similarly situated VH candidates, and holding of the Part II (Descriptive) Examination on 7.9.2008 for the applicant and other similarly placed VH candidates.
(vii) Respondent no.1-DSSSB did not publish the result of the Part II (Descriptive) Examination held on 7.9.2008 in which the applicant and other VH candidates appeared. No information was also given either by respondent no.1-DSSSB or by respondent no.2-Services Department to the applicant and other VH candidates as to why their result of the Part II (Descriptive) Examination held on 7.9.2008 was not published.
(viii) In the year 2009, Respondent no.2-Services Department sent requisition to respondent no.1-DSSSB for initiating the selection process for recruitment against 237 vacancies in the post of Grade II (DASS), which included the said 02 unfilled vacancies for VH category.
(ix) Respondent no.1-DSSSB, on the basis of the said requisition, issued Advertisement No.04/2009, and under Post Code 90/09, 237 vacancies in the post of Grade II (DASS), including the 02 unfilled vacancies for VH categories were, were notified.
(x) The recruitment examination pursuant to Advertisement No.04/2009 was not conducted by the respondent no.1-DSSSB.
(xi) In the year 2013, Respondent no.2-Services Department sent a fresh requisition to respondent no.1-DSSSB for initiating recruitment process against 331 vacancies in the post of Grade II (DASS), which included the said 02 unfilled vacancies for VH category.
(xii) Respondent no.1-DSSSB issued Advertisement No.3/13, Post Code 40/13, wherein 313 vacancies in the post of Grade II (DASS) in the Services Department were indicated. The breakups of the said 313 vacancies were stated as UR 185, OBC 59, SC 50, ST-19) including PH (OH-04, HH-04, VH-06), EXSM-31, Sports person 16. It was also mentioned therein that the vacancies for disabled persons will be subject to the directions of the Honble Court in OA No.1567/2013, Pritam vs. GNCT of Delhi and Ors.
7. As regards the plea of limitation raised by the respondents, we have found that neither respondent no.1-DSSSB, nor respondent no.2-Services Department, has given any intimation to the applicant about the result of the Part II (Descriptive) Examination held on 7.9.2008. In spite of his making applications under the R.T.I.Act, the respondents failed to provide information to the applicant as to why the result of the said examination was not published. The respondent no.2-Services Department, vide its letter dated 17.1.2013, informed the applicant that the recruitment process pursuant to the Advertisement No.04/2006, Post Code 59/06, had been closed. Thus, as rightly contended by the applicant, the cause of action arose on 17.1.2013 when the applicant got the intimation from respondent no.2-Services Department that the selection process pursuant to the Advertisement No.04/2006, Post Code 59/06, had been closed without publication of the result of the Part II (Descriptive) Examination held on 7.9.2008. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, solely on the basis of publication of the Advertisement No.04/2009 in the year 2009 without indicating the factum of closure of the selection process in question and without publishing the result of the Part II (Descriptive) Examination held on 7.9.2008, the respondents cannot be allowed to take the plea that the cause of action arose in January 2009 and the OA filed by the applicant in April 2013 is barred by limitation. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the plea of limitation, as raised by the respondents.
8. In the counter reply jointly filed by the respondents, it has been pleaded that the respondent no.2-Services Department, vide letter dated 3.9.2008, directed the respondent no.1-DSSSB not to conduct Part II (Descriptive) Examination on 7.9.2008 for the applicant and other VH candidates. Copy of the said letter dated 3.9.2008 has not been produced before this Tribunal. The respondents have also not disclosed any reason as to why respondent no.2-Services Department issued such direction to the respondent-DSSSB. When the respondent no.1-DSSSB admittedly found that due to wrong feeding in the scanning process the applicant and similarly placed VH candidates were found over-aged and were not short-listed on the basis of their performance in Part I (Objective) Examination held on 8.7.2007 and took a decision to short-list them for appearing in the Part II (Descriptive)Examination on 7.9.2008, the direction issued by respondent-Services Department, vide its letter dated 3.9.2008, to the respondent no.1-DSSSB not to conduct the Part II (Descriptive) Examination without assigning any reason, far less justifiable reason, not only amounts to their unnecessarily interfering with the selection process conducted by the recruiting agency, i.e., respondent no.1-DSSSB, but also colorable exercise of power, which cannot be countenanced in law. The other aspect of the matter is that when admittedly the respondent-DSSSB conducted the Part II (Descriptive) Examination on 7.9.2008, respondent no.2-Services Department, without assigning any reason, sent a fresh requisition in 2009 to the respondent no.1-DSSSB for initiating the selection process for 237 vacancies of Grade II (DASS), which included the 2 vacancies for VH category, earlier notified in the Advertisement No.04/2006, Post Code 59/06. On the basis of the said requisition, Advertisement No.04/2009 was issued by respondent no.1-DSSSB. It is also found that the recruitment examination was not conducted pursuant to the said Advertisement No.04/2009 till 2013. In the year 2013, the respondent no.2-Services Department again sent a fresh requisition, on the basis of which respondent no.1-DSSSB issued Advertisement No.3/13, wherein under Post Code 40/13, it was mentioned that the vacancies for disabled persons will be subject to the directions of the Honble Court in OA No.1567/2013, Pritam vs. GNCT of Delhi & ors. In the above view of the matter, we hold that the applicant having appeared in the Part II (Descriptive) Examination held on 7.9.2008 pursuant to the Advertisement No.04/2006, Post Code 59/06, he has a right to know the result of the said examination and has also a right to be considered for selection and appointment against the 02 VH vacancies in the post of Grade II (DASS) in accordance with the scheme of the recruitment examination, and that his rights cannot be allowed to be scuttled by the respondents arbitrarily and without any justifiable reason. We also hold that issuance of Advertisement No.04/2009, or Advertisement No.13/2013, which also admittedly included the 02 VH vacancies earlier notified in the Advertisement No.04/2006, vide Post Code 59/06, would not afford a ground to the respondents not to publish the result of the Part II (Descriptive) Examination held on 7.9.2008 pursuant to the Advertisement No.04/2006, Post code 59/06. Thus, the respondents are found to have acted illegally and arbitrarily in not publishing the result of Part II (Descriptive) Examination held on 7.9.2008, in which the applicant and other similarly placed VH persons appeared. Therefore, in our considered view, it is a fit case where the Tribunal should intervene and issue appropriate direction to the respondents. We would also like to observe here that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, non-intervention by the Tribunal in the matter would amount to upholding the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents, thereby giving a license to the respondents to continue to act in such illegal and arbitrary manner compelling the gullible citizens, who participate in selection process for appointment to public posts, to knock at the doors of different judicial forums for redressal of their grievances and, in the process, a vast number of unnecessary litigations will be initiated in Courts/Tribunals.
9. In the light of the above discussions, we partly allow the O.A. and direct the respondents to declare the result of the Part II (Descriptive) Examination held on 7.9.2008 for the post of Grade II (DASS) pursuant to the Advertisement No.04/2006, Post Code 59/06, in which the applicant and other VH candidates had appeared, and to take all consequential actions within a period of 45 (forty-five) days from today. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we order that in the event any of the VH candidates, including the applicant, is declared to have qualified in the Part II (Descriptive) Examination and is consequently selected and appointed, he/she will be entitled to the service benefits only from the date of order of appointment, or the date of joining the post/service, whichever is later.
No order as to costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (ASHOK KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AN