Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hariom Ahlawat vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 October, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH : NEW DELHI Original Application No.3429/2010 New Delhi, this the 29th day of October, 2012 CORAM: HONBLE DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A) HONBLE DR. DHARAM PAUL SHARMA, MEMBER (J) Hariom Ahlawat, S/o Shri Wazir Singh, R/o V.P.O: The. Beri, Distt. Jhajjar Haryana Presently R/o 690, New Residential Complex Tihar, New Delhi 110 056 Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary, 5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya, New Delhi 2. The Principal Secretary (Home), GNCT of Delhi 5th floor, C Wing, Delhi Sachivalaya, New Delhi 3. The Director General (Prisons), GNCT of Delhi Prisons Headquarter, Near Lajwanti Garden Chowk, Janakpuri, New Delhi 4. The Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, F-18, Karkardooma, Institutional Area, Delhi - 110 092 Respondents (By Advocate: Ms Sumedha Sharma) O R D E R
BY Dr. Veena Chhotray:
Appointed as an Assistant Superintendent in the Office of the Director General of Prisons, GNCTD, the services of the applicant have been terminated vide the impugned order dated 28.9.2010. This is in pursuance of a revised panel recommended by the redrawing of the merit list, on the basis of age in respect of candidates securing equal marks.
The following order has been passed by the Director General of Prisons (Res. 3):-
No.F.18[116]/Estt./CJ/2009 Dated:-
O R D E R In pursuance of Dy. Secretary (P&P), Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Govt. of NCT, Delhi letter No.F.I(40)/DSSSB/ P&P/1827 dated 20/1/2010 read with Office Order No.62 circulated vide No.F./I/CC-II/DSSSB/2009/662-666 dated 21.12.2009, I B.K. Gupta, Director General (Prisons) in pursuance of sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 hereby give notice to the under mentioned newly recruited Assistant Superintendents that their services shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which this notice is served on, or as the case may be, tendered to them:-
SL NO. ROLL NO. NAME OF OFFICIAL D.O.B. PRESENT POSTING 01. 01212205 HARI OM AHLAWAT 05.07.1987 CJ-3 02. 01214051 PUNISH 10.11.1982 CJ-4
By way of main relief, the OA seeks directions for quashing the impugned order qua the applicant with all consequential benefits.
2. The learned counsels Shri Ajesh Luthra would argue for the applicant and Ms Sumedha Sharma for the respondents.
3. On a separate OA being filed by Shri Punish (OA No.3433/2010) a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal (of which one of us i.e. Member (A) was also a Member) vide its Order dated 16.11.2011 had already allowed the OA. The following operational directions had been given:-
12. Under the circumstances, we do not find any justification for the respondents to terminate the services of the applicant. Resultantly, the impugned termination of services qua the applicant is quashed and set aside. The applicant would be treated as having continued in service with normal consequential service benefits admissible as per law such as increments, seniority, being counted for promotion/ACP as well as pensionary benefits.
The OA is allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions. However, parties would bear their own costs.
4. The facts and arguments of the present case are similar to and on many points identical with those in the OA 3433/2010. The appointments in question in both the cases had been in pursuance of the same recruitment process through the DSSSB sequel to the advertisement No.01/2008 under the post code 12/08. While the present applicant had been appointed under the unreserved category, the said Punish was an OBC candidate. As in Punishs case, the applicant had not only been offered the appointment on the basis of the original panel recommended by the DSSSB, but he had also joined the post. Similarly, after a six months pre-induction training, the applicant had been working as an Assistant Superintendent (Prisons).
Subsequently when the DSSSB wrote to the user department to keep the names of three earlier recommended candidates (including the present applicant in the UR category and Punish under OBC), in abeyance, the Directorate of Prisons had not done the same. Instead it had been reported that out of the three candidates, Shri Hari Om Ahlawat and Shri Punish had already been joined and posted in Jails and attending in-service training.
By virtue of interim protection from the Tribunal, the applicant has been continuing as Assistant Superintendent.
5. The main argument in Punishs case was that the services of the applicant were being terminated despite vacancies being available. A similar argument has also been advanced in the present case.
As per the requisition by the user Department, of the total 46 vacancies notified by the Prisons Department (the vacancies had been subsequently modified), 25 vacancies were under the unreserved category. As per the Result Notice dated 1.5.2009 (Annexure A/3), out of the 25 candidates recommended, 5 candidates (from Sl. 21 to25) had secured the same 111 marks. The name of the present applicant was at serial no.24.
On redrawing of the merit list as a result of rechecking in view of references from some candidates intimating discrepancy in respect of candidates obtaining equal marks a revised merit position was indicted. In their counter reply dated 22.12.2010, the DSSSB has submitted the revised merit list in respect of candidates with marks 111 as per their age. The list shows a total 11 candidates; the name of the applicant figuring at serial no.10. In this list, four candidates have actually been shown as selected under the reserved categories (Sl. 1, 2, 3 and 5) Sl. No.8, Manjeet whose name had been recommended as a substitute for Hari Om Ahlawat had the applicant not continued in service. As per the remarks column, he had left. Taking this into account, the rank of the applicant which initially was sixth on leaving of Manjeet it came down to fifth. Further among the candidates selected, two (Shri Anuj Kumar and Shri Sandeep) had not joined/had resigned within six months respectively. As per Shri Ajesh Luthra, the learned counsel for the applicant, out of the originally notified 25 vacancies under the UR category, still two more vacancies remained unfilled, against which the appointment of the applicant could be sustained.
These facts have not been contradicted by the respondents.
6. On 27.8.2012, the Tribunal issued directions to the respondents to clarify their stand as regards carrying forward of the unfilled vacancies:
After hearing the counsels for both the sides at length, we find it necessary for the respondents counsel to file an additional affidavit substantiating her contention that unfilled vacancies from the selection process involved in this case have been carried forward to the subsequent selection processes and have already been filled up. In this context, the respondents would take due note of not only the five vacancies under the UR category with the same marks of 111 in respect of which the merit list was subsequently redrawn but also two other vacancies due to resignation and non-joining of the concerned candidates. In effect they would be clarifying the picture regarding filling up/carried forward in respect of all the 25 vacancies under the UR category. In their additional affidavit dated 1.10.2012, it has been submitted that no subsequent selection process has been carried out for the post of Assistant Superintendent by the DSSSB.
7. While dealing with Punishs case, the issues like non-maintaining of a waiting panel by the DSSSB; the issue not being against additional vacancies notified subsequently or future vacancies in the factual gamut of the case and the termination being not in consonance with the principles of fair play and reasonableness have been elaborately discussed. The same would apply in the present case.
In their aforesaid additional affidavit, the respondents have referred to the Tribunals order dated 2.8.2010 in OA No.429/2010 (Vandana vs DSSSB & Ors). However, the case was dealing with a different issue i.e. inclusion of names of certain ineligible candidates in the panel recommended by the DSSSB leading to non-inclusion of the names of the applicants therein. Dealing with the respondents contention of non-maintenance of any wait panel, a supplementary panel as per GNCTD Circular dated 4.7.2008 (also in Punishs case and also in the present one), the misconception regarding the applicability of the same in the facts of the case had been driven home. Adverse observations had also been made against the DSSSB for sending incomplete panel on account of inclusion of names of persons whose candidature was found to be doubtful. Ultimately directions given to the DSSSB to send the names of the next three candidates of OBC category in accordance with merit to the user Department for appointment as Drawing Teacher.
Hence the decision of the learned Coordinate Bench in the OA 429/2010 cited by the respondents in a way comes in the way of the decision as taken in Punishs case with which the present case is found to be similar.
8. Shri Ajesh Luthra, the learned counsel for the applicant has also cited the decision of the Delhi High Court in Kuldeep Singh & Anr vs DSSSB & Anr reported as 118 (2005) DELHI LAW TIMES 101. Dealing with the cases of appointment through DSSSB for the posts of Assistant Teachers under the MCD, and certain practices followed by DSSSB/GNCTD, stricture had been passed as to how they impacted every citizen of India aspiring for Government appointment through the aegis of DSSSB.
Though in a different context, the obiter dicta would be of material relevant in the facts of the present case as well.
8. To conclude, the facts of the present case are found to be similar to those in the OA 3433/2010 (Punish vs DSSSB & Ors) and the issues of law identical. Accordingly, this OA is decided with same directions as reproduced below:
12. Under the circumstances, we do not find any justification for the respondents to terminate the services of the applicant. Resultantly, the impugned termination of services qua the applicant is quashed and set aside. The applicant would be treated as having continued in service with normal consequential service benefits admissible as per law such as increments, seniority, being counted for promotion/ACP as well as pensionary benefits.
The OA is allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions. However, parties would bear their own costs. Our directions are to be complied within two months of receipt of a copy of this order.
Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) (Dr. Veena Chhotray)
Member (J) Member (A)
/pkr/