Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Rajiv Kumar vs Central Board Of Excise And Customs on 5 December, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-748/2013
Reserved on : 02.12.2014.
Pronounced on : 05.12.2014.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Sh. Rajiv Kumar,
S/o Sh. Kesara Ram,
R/o III/3, Central Excise Colony,
Avas Vikas, Delhi Road,
Saharanpur-UP. .. Applicant
(through Sh. Pranav Sapra, Advocate)
Versus
1. Central Board of Excise and Customs
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
Govt. of India, 9th Floor,
Hudco Vishala Building,
Bikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066.
2. Union of India through
Secretary (Revenue),
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi-110066. .. Respondents
(through Sh. Ashok Kumar, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicant appeared as a general candidate for the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2008. He secured rank SLD/00132 in the merit list and was recommended for appointment as Inspector (Central Excise) under the general category by the Staff Selection Commission. He had given following preferences for the zone in that year:-
(i) Delhi
(ii) Chandigarh
(iii) Lucknow
(iv) Vadodara
(v) Mumbai According to him, in the relevant year in Delhi zone there were 93 vacancies available. 47 of these were meant for general candidates and the remaining 463 for ST/SC/OBC category. Three posts were reserved for physically handicapped candidates through horizontal reservation. He was, however, allocated Lucknow zone. His grievance is that the respondents have erred in allocating Delhi zone to various candidates inasmuch as they have allotted this zone to several candidates belonging to reserved category treating them as own merit candidates. He has given examples of Mr. Sumit, Mr. Jay Prakash Narayan, Mr. Sushil Kumar Darvey, Mr. Brijendra Singh Rajput and Mr. Manoj Kumar Goril, who were ranked SLD 140, SLD 152, SLD 153, SLD 161 and SLD 163 respectively. He has alleged that these candidates were lower in merit as compared to the applicant, whose rank was 132 and, therefore, could not have been allocated Delhi zone in general category as own merit candidates. His contention is that the respondents have clearly failed to apply the procedure/guidelines given in the Office Memorandum dated 04.06.2010. He had made a representation to the respondents on 16.02.2012 and even sent a reminder on 28.03.2012. When nothing was heard from the respondents, he has filed this O.A. before us seeking the following relief:-
(a) that the respondent be directed to reallocate the applicant to Delhi zone which was his first preferences.
(b) any other relief this Honble tribunal deems fit and proper.
2. In this regard, the applicant has relied upon the order of this very Bench dated 01.07.2014 passed in OA-2804/2013 on the same issue.
3. In their reply, the respondents have merely stated that they have followed the Instructions contained in DOP&Ts O.M. dated 09.07.2010 wherein it is laid down that a candidate belonging to a reserved category qualifying on general standards should not be placed at a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis a less meritorious candidate belonging to that category. They have further stated that one person, namely, Sh. Surender Singh, who was selected on the basis of CGLE 2006 and who had been allocated Vadodara zone had filed OA-3494/2009 before this Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 03.12.2009 had directed DoP&T to consider the representation dated 04.08.2009 of Sh. Surender Singh and decide the same. After considering his representation, DoP&T issued revised Instructions which are contained in their O.M. No. 36012/72/2009-Estt.(res.) dated 04.06.2010, which, inter alia, provide that allocation of zones to candidates recommended against unreserved vacancies may be made by the Department of Revenue by strictly following the merit-cum-preference. Further, it is stipulated that candidates belonging to the reserved category recommended against unreserved vacancies may be adjusted against reserved vacancies if by doing so they get the zones of their preference. The respondents have submitted that they have strictly followed these Instructions and there is no infirmity in zone allocation to the applicant.
4. We have heard both parties and have perused the material on record. To resolve this controversy, we have to decide whether the DoP&T Instructions dated 04.06.2010 have been correctly followed by the respondents. We have perused these Instructions. The relevant paras of the same are extracted below:-
9. It is evident from the facts given by Shri Surender Singh and the Department of Revenue that allocation of zone is very important in the career of Inspectors. Their promotion and other benefits depend on zone allotted to them. The consequences of allotment of zone to them are comparable to allocation of a service on the basis of a combined examination held for selection of candidates for different services. Since allocation of zone depends on merit and preferences given by the candidates, merit counts not at the time of selection of candidates by the Staff Selection Commission only but also at the time of allotment of zone. If any reserved category candidate is allotted a zone of higher preference which he would have not been allotted if he were not a reserved category candidate, he is given a preference/relaxation in the matter of allotment of zone. Keeping in view the consequences of allotment of zone, such a candidate cannot be treated as own merit candidate even if he has been shown as own merit candidate by the Commission. Since such a candidate is appointed in a particular zone by getting a relaxation, he should be adjusted against a reserved vacancy for that category.
10. The Department of Revenue has given the benefit of reservation to reserved category candidates in the matter of allotment of zones and at the same time adjusted them against unreserved vacancies. A candidate can be adjusted against an unreserved vacancy, if he does not get any preference or concession which is not available to unreserved category candidates. The system adopted by the Department of Revenue goes against this principle and has resulted into denial of the right to equality to the unreserved category candidates.
11. Keeping all aspects in view, it is suggested that after the selection process for the post is completed by the Staff Selection Commission, the Commission should arrange the candidates in the order of merit as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate. Thereafter, the Commission should prepare a list of candidates to be recommended against unreserved vacancies and separate lists of candidates to be recommended against vacancies reserved for the Schedules Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and he Other Backward Classes. The candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes who have not availed themselves of any of the concessions or relaxation in the eligibility or the selection criteria, at any stage of the examination and who after taking into account the general qualifying standards are found fit for recommendation by the Commission should be included in the list of candidates to be recommended against unreserved vacancies. The number of candidates recommended by the Commission, in the first instance, should be equal to the total number of vacancies reduced by the number of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes included in the list of candidates to be recommended against unreserved vacancies. Allocation of zones to candidates recommended against unreserved vacancies may then be made by the Department of Revenue strictly by following the principle of merit-cum-preference. However, candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes recommended against unreserved vacancies may be adjusted against reserved vacancies if by doing so, they get the zones of their higher preference. Thereafter, the candidates recommended against the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes may be allocated zones strictly by following the principle of merit-cum-preference. We notice that in these Instructions it is clearly laid down that allocation of zone is very important in the career of Inspectors and allotment of zone to them is comparable to allocation of service on the basis of Combined Level Examination held for candidates of different services. Further, it is laid down that merit counts not only at the time of selection of candidates by the SSC but also at the time of allotment of zone. The Instructions also provide that a general merit candidate is one who qualifies on his own merit without availing of any of the concessions meant for the reserved category candidates. The Instructions also provide that if any reserved candidate is allotted zone of higher preference, which he would not have been allotted if he was not a reserved category candidate then it is presumed that he has been given preference/relaxation in the matter of zone allotment and such a candidate cannot be treated as a own merit candidate even if he has been shown as own merit candidate by the Commission. Thereafter in Para-11 of these Instructions the procedure for allocating the concessions is laid down.
4.1 After perusing the Instructions, we are clear that if these Instructions had been strictly followed then in the general list of those allocated Delhi zone on the basis of their preference nobody who was junior to the applicant in the merit list could have figured in the list since applicant had given Delhi Zone as his first choice. However, we notice from the list of those allocated Delhi zone in the general quota (page-75 of the paper-book) that the following candidates, who have ranked lower than the applicant figure in the same:-
Sl.No. Name Rank Category 39 Manish Singhal SLD/00479 SC* 40 Kuldeep SLD/00585 SC* 45 Manoj Kumar Goril SLD/00163 OBC* 46 Prabhakar Kumar SLD/00258 OBC* 47 Pavan Kumar Gupta SLD/00265 OBC* 48 Sarita Kumari SLD/00236 OBC* Thus, while the applicant had ranked 132, these candidates having rank lower than him have been allocated Delhi zone under vacancies meant for general quota. It is obvious that on their own merit these candidates were not qualifying for allocation of Delhi zone in preference to the applicant even though they may have been recommended as own merit candidates by the SSC. The correct procedure would have been for the respondents to allocate Delhi zone to the applicant who was higher in merit and who had given Delhi as his first preference before adjusting reserved category candidates in the general quota or these candidates should have been placed in reserved category lists.
5. We, therefore, find merit in the contention of the applicant. Accordingly, we allow this O.A. and quash the allocation of zone qua the applicant. We further direct that the respondents will consider allocating Delhi zone to the applicant in accordance with his preference in the light of observations made above. These directions shall be complied with within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /Vinita/