Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Sanjay Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 13 February, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI OA NO.464/2012 NEW DELHI THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012 HONBLE MR. JOG SINGH, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER (A) Sh. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Sant Ram Singh R/o VPO Bidhlan Distt. Sonepat, Haryana Applicant (By Advocate: Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj for Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi through: 1. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, Delhi. 2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Through its Secretary, 3rd Floor, UTCS Building, Institutional Area, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. 3. The Director General Delhi Fire Service, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mrs. Renu George) ORDER (ORAL) MR. JOG SINGH, MEMBER (J):
In the present OA, the applicant has raised grievance regarding his non-selection to the post of Fire Operator. With the consent of the parties, we have heard this matter and we proceed to dispose it of.
2. The case of the applicant is that pursuant to Advertisement No.01/2009, he applied for the post of Fire Operator in February 2009. The written test was conducted on 30th August 2009 in which the applicant took part and qualified the same. Thereafter, on successfully passing the said examination he was called upon to appear in the physical test on 12.06.2010 and was further subjected to driving skill test on 07.08.2010. However, suddenly the applicant was informed on 12.07.2011 that his candidature for the post of Fire Operator was cancelled. There were other similarly situated persons. They approached this Tribunal by way of OA No.3131/2011 and the same was considered by this Tribunal and disposed of by order dated 09.12.2011. The operative portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience:
4. It is noticed that the facts of this case are squarely covered by the direction given by this Tribunal in OA-2206/2010, OA-4271/2010, OA No.2353/2011 and OA No.3789/2010. The Tribunal following the decision given on 07.09.2011 in OA-3789/2010 issued the following direction in OA No.4271/2010:-
7. In view of the fact that this issue has already been decided by the Tribunal, we would direct the respondent No.2 to examine the genuineness of the signature of the applicant with reference to the documents available with them or with reference to any other mode of verification they would choose to adopt. In case the verification shows that the signature of the applicant in block capital letters was genuine, then they shall forward the dossier of the applicant to the Appointing Authority for consideration of his appointment to the post of Warder (Male) in a prospective manner. In case their scrutiny reveals otherwise they may pass a reasoned order after giving due opportunity to the applicant.
5. This instant case being covered in all fours, for parity of reasons, we direct the Respondent No2 to examine the genuineness of the signature of the applicant with reference to the documents available with them or with reference to any other mode of verification they would choose to adopt and in case the verification shows that the signature of the applicant in block capital letters is genuine, they shall forward the dossier of the applicant to the Appointing Authority for consideration of his appointment to the post of Fire Operator. In case the scrutiny and verification of his signature reveals otherwise they may pass a reasoned and speaking order after giving opportunity to the applicant.
Resultantly, the O.A. is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No costs. Prima facie it appears that the applicant is also assailing the impugned order on the ground of parity.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that justice would be met, if the respondents are called upon to treat this OA as a representation under Section 20 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and consider it by passing appropriate orders keeping in view the earlier judgment of this Tribunal on the point, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We order accordingly. In case the applicant is still aggrieved, he would be at liberty to approach this Tribunal by way of proceedings as per law. The OA, accordingly, stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction and liberty at the admission stage itself.
(Manjulika Gautam) (Jog Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jk/