Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Parveen vs Uoi & Ors. Through Secretary on 20 January, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
OA No.1287/2014
in
MA NO.1119/2014
MA NO.1121/2014
With
OA No.3176/2014
in
MA No.2727/2014
OA No.3548/2014
OA No.3549/2014
OA No.3551/2014
OA No.3552/2014
OA No.3555/2014
in
MA No.3908/2014
OA No.3570/2014
in
MA No.3902/2014
OA No.3571/2014
in
MA No.3901/2014
OA No.4243/2014
OA No.4492/2014
OA No.4663/2014
&
OA No.3988/2014
in
MA No.3471/2014
MA No.3489/2014
Reserved on 15.01.2015
Pronounced on 20.01.2015
HONBLE MR. ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
HONBLE MR. RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER (J)
OA NO.1287/2014
MA NO.1119/2014
MA NO.1121/2014
1. Parveen, Roll No.2201547686
Aged about 22 years,
S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan,
R/o VPO Rohat,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
2. Pawan Kumar, Roll No.2201548451
Aged about 25 years,
S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan,
R/o VPO Rohat,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
3. Ajay, Roll No.2201515798
Aged about 24 years,
S/o Sh. Sant Ram,
R/o VPO Suhra,
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana.
4. Vinit Kumar, Roll No.2201025058
Aged about 24 years,
C/o Sh. Ved Prakash,
R/o Rohna near Arya Samaj Mandir,
Tehsil Kharkhoda, Sonepat,
Haryana.
5. Rajdev Ujjwal, Roll No.2201115107
Aged about 25 years,
S/o Sh. Jabar Singh,
R/o RZG-342, Flat No.401,
Gali No.3, Bhagat Singh Marg,
Raj Nagar-2, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110077. Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj)
VERSUS
1. UOI & Ors. Through Secretary,
DOP&T, North Block,
New Delhi.
2. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO (Complex),
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. The Regional Director,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO (Complex),
Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif)
OA No.3988/2014
MA No.3471/2014
MA No.3489/2014
1. Anand Kumar (2201514513)
Age 27 years,
S/o Rajendra Kumar,
G-12, DTC Colony
Shadipur, New Delhi.
2. Gaurav Dabas (2201034228),
Aged-27 years
S/o Baljeet Singh
H. No.637
VPO-Pooth Khurd,
North Delhi.
3. Preeti (2201003740),
Aged-25 years
W/o Parveen Kumar,
VPO- Jasaur Kheri
Tehsil-Bahadugarh,
Jhajjar, Haryana.
4. Vikas Panwar (2201027686)
Aged-26 years,
S/o Suresh Kumar
VPO-Saidppur,
Tehsil-Kharkhoda,
Sonipat, Haryana.
5. Kuldeep Saini (2201500652),
S/o Raj Sinsh Saini,
C/o Surya Communication,
Dadri Gate, Chowk,
Bhiwani, Haryana. Applicants
(By Advocate: 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.4663/2014
1. Sumit Mathur (2201520494)
Aged about 28 years,
S/o Sh. Satyavir Singh
R/o H.No.385, VPO Karala,
Delhi.
2. Sandeep (2201521853)
Aged about 27 years
S/o Sh. Rajbir Singh
R/o H.No.592, VPO Karala,
Delhi-81.
3. Parvesh Kumar (2201096408)
Aged about 27 years
S/o Sh. Balram Singh
R/o H.No.65/11, Gali No.2,
Hari Nagar, New Najafgarh,
Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar,
Haryana. Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj)
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. Through
1. The Secretary
DOP&T
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No.12, CGO (Complex),
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. The Regional Director,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO ( Complex),
Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif)
OA NO.4492/2014
Rajveer Singh Meena,
Age-24 years,
S/o Girraj Prasad Meena,
R/o Vill-Tajpura, Post-Dabar,
The-Bamanwas,
Sawai Madhopur,
Rajasthan-322214. 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 and
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.3571/2014
MA No.3901/2014
Sumit Kumar,
S/o Sh. Yashvir Singh,
Age 25 years,
Roll No.2201564014,
Group C, Subject Appointment
R/o House No.994, Sector-14,
Sonepat, Haryana-131001. Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta)
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. The Secretary-cum-Controller
Of Examination, Staff Selection
Commission, Block No.12,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif)
OA No.3570/2014
MA No.3902/2014
Karamveer,
S/o Sh. Mahavir Singh,
Age 27 years,
Roll No.2201557515,
Group C, Subject Appointment,
R/o VPO- Zainabad, The. & Distt.
Rewari, Haryana-123411. Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta)
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through its 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-110003. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif)
OA No.3555/2014
MA No.3908/2014
Ajay Kumar,
S/o Sh. Jag Pal Singh,
Age 25 years,
Roll No.2201129906,
Group C, Subject Appointment,
R/o VPO Harsoli, Thana Shahpur,
Muzzafarnagar, U.P.-251001. Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta)
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3.
2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of
Examinatio, SSC, Block No.12,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-3. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif)
OA No.3552/2014
Vikas Pundir, Age-29 years,
S/o Sh. Chandrahas Pundir,
Roll No.3011509103,
R/o Shri Ram Vihar Colony,
Behind Baliyakheri Block,
Delhi Road, Saharanpur,
UP-247001. 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 Dy. Director (Central Region),
Staff Selection Commission,
21-23 Lawther Road,
Allahabad-211002.
4. The Controller General,
O/o the Controller General of
Defense Account,
Ministry of Defense,
Office of the CGDA, Ulan Batar Road,
Palam, Delhi Cantt. Respondents
( By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif)
OA No.3551/2014
Pardeep Kumar, Age-25 years,
S/o Sh. Satbir Singh,
Roll No.7001719700,
R/o VPO-Sulodha,
Teshil-Jhajjar,
Haryana-124103. 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,
Govt. of India,
Staff Selection Commission (WR),
1st Floor, South Wing,
Prathishta Bhavan,
(Old CGO Building), 101,
M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020.
4. The Controller of General,
O/o the Controller General of
Defense Account,
Ministry of Defense, Office of the
CGDA, Ulan Batar Road, Palam,
Delhi Cantt. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif)
OA No.3549/2014
Sandeep Singh, Age-27 years,
S/o Sh. Satbir Singh,
Roll No.1801502104,
R/o VPO-Sulodha,
Tehsil-Jhajjar, Haryana-124103. 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 Deputy Regional Director,
Govt. of India,
Staff Selection Commission (NWR),
DOP&T, Block-3, Kendriya Sadan,
Sector-9, Chandigarh.
4. The Deputy Director,
Govt. of India,
Staff Selection Commission (NWR
Staff Selection Commission (NWR),
DOP&T, Block-3, Kendriya Sadan,
Sector-9, Chandigarh. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif)
OA No.3548/2014
Bhupinder Singh, Age-29 years,
Fresh Appointment,
S/o Sh. Dharamparkash,
Roll No.7001719810,
R/o House No.497/21,
Gali No.4, Omnagar,
Gurgaon. 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,
Govt. of India,
Staff Selection Commission (WR),
1st Floor, South Wing,
Prathishta Bhavan,
(Old CGO Building), 101, M.K. Road,
Mumbai- 400 020.
4. Central Board of Excise and
Customs through its Chairman,
CBEC, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif)
OA No.3176/2014
MA No.2727/2014
1. Rekha Rani, (Appointment),
Aged about 24 years,
W/o Sh. Satish,
R/o VPO Rohna,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
2. Rajab, (Appointment)
Aged about 27 years,
D/o Sh. Ranbir Singh,
R/o VPO Ladrawan,
Tehsil Bahadurgarh,
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana.
3. Yogesh Kumar, (Appointment)
Aged about 26 years,
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh,
R/o Village Rohna,
Tehsil Kharkhoda,
Distt,. Sonepat, Haryana.
4. Vijeta Kumari (Appointment)
Aged about 26 years,
D/o Sh. Jagbir Singh,
R/o Village Rohna,
Tehsil Kharkhoda,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
5. Amita (appointment)
Aged about 28 years,
W/o Kumar Gaurav,
R/o Bula Colony, Kanjhawala,
Delhi.
6. Sandeep Mann (appointment)
Aged about 24 years,
S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan Mann,
R/o H.No.83 Alipur, Delhi-36.
7. Niteesh Panwar (appointment)
Aged about 27 years,
S/o Sh. Rajbir Singh,
R/o H.No.309, Mazra Road,
Dhiman Pura Shamli,
Prabhudh Nagar, (UP-247776). Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj)
VERSUS
UOI & Ors. Through:
1. The Secretary,
DOP&T, North Block,
New Delhi.
2. Staff Selection Commission,
Through its Chairman
Block No.12, CGO (Complex),
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. The Regional Director,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO (Complex),
Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif)
OA No.4243/2014
Ankur Sharma, Age -25 years,
S/o Satya Deo Sharma,
R/o Mohan Garden (Rama Park Road),
Uttam Nagar, West Delhi,
Delhi-110 059. Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan)
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman, SSC,
Block-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 Controller General,
O/o the Controller General of
Defense Account,
Ministry of Defense,
Office of the CGDA,
Ulan Batar Road, Palam,
Delhi Cantt-10. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif)
:ORDER:
SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER (A):
These OAs have been taken up together on the request of counsel for applicants and counsel for respondent-SSC on the ground that the issues involved and the reliefs sought by the applicants are identical in all these OAs.
2. Based on the request of counsel for applicants and counsel for respondent-SSC, these OAs have been taken up and heard together. A common order is, therefore, being passed in all these OAs. For the purpose of pleadings and documents on record, as well as common arguments by both parties, OA No.1287/2014 (Parveen & Others Versus Union of India & Others and SSC Committee) has been taken as a lead case.
3. At the outset, we shall examine the following MAs filed in the connected OAs.
(i) MA No.1119/2014 has been filed in OA No1287/2014 for joining together. For the reason stated that the grievance of all applicants in the MA is the same as that of the applicants in the OA, MA No.1119/2014 is allowed and stands disposed of accordingly.
(ii) MA No.2727/2014 has been filed in OA No.3176/2014 for joining together. For the reason stated that the grievance of all applicants in the MA is the same as that of the applicants in the OA, MA No.2727/2014 is allowed and stands disposed of accordingly.
(iii) MA No.3471/2014 has been filed in OA No.3988/2014 seeking condonation of delay of 158 days in filing the OA. For the reasons stated therein, MA No.3471/2014 is allowed.
(iv) MA No.3908/2014 has been filed in OA No.3555/2014 for listing the matter before the Bench. With the hearing of OA itself, MA No.3908/2014 becomes infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.
(v) MA No.3902/2014 has been filed in OA No.3570/2014 for listing the matter before the Bench. With the hearing of OA itself, MA No.3902/2014 becomes infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.
(vi) MA No.3901/2014 has been filed in OA No.3571/2014 for listing the matter before the Bench. With the hearing of OA itself, MA No.3901/2014 becomes infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.
4. The present OAs have been filed by the applicants who are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not declaring them selected for appointment on the basis of their merit in Combined Graduate Level Examination-2012 (in short CGLE-2012) in spite of securing more marks than the last selected candidate. The applicants are further aggrieved because of the respondents initiating action against them for cancellation of their candidature and also for debarment for five years based on presumptions and assumptions with respect to the alleged copying with other candidates. According to the applicants in the said OA, the final result of the candidates appearing in the CGLE-2012 was declared on 09.02.2013 and the applicants were declared selected and allotted the post and the zone. Suddently, thereafter, the respondents decided to cancel the candidature of the applicants illegally and for that purpose issued show cause notice to them on 27.05.2013 ( in the lead case) and actually started initiating the process for cancellation of candidature by making presumptive allegations. It is contended by the applicants that having cleared Tier-I and Tier-II Examination, the CPT and interview at the time of declaration of the result, suddenly the allegations with respect to copying has been made. Such action of the respondents has to be viewed in the light of the fact that proper arrangement has been made by the SSC for physically checking the candidates at the entry point of the premises, and the mobile phones, and other gadgets were not permitted in the examination centre. Two invigilators or flying squad were also deputed for ensuring constant watch on the candidates. None of the invigilators or flying squad had made any complaint against them in any manner. Yet after declaring the applicants selected in the examination and after issuing the letter dated 21.02.2013 for sending the dossiers of applicants to the user Department on 30.05.2013, the respondents revised the result declared earlier on 08.02.2013 wherein the names of the applicants, who were already declared selected and their names were directed to be sent for appointment, were also included in the list of withheld candidates without any justification. The show cause notices issued to the applicants have, therefore, been challenged on various grounds mentioned in the OA.
5. The following reliefs have been sought in the lead OA (similar reliefs have also been sought in the connected OAs:-
i) To quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 27.05.2013 (Colly) and declare the action of respondents in withholding the selection of applicants and debarring them for five years as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
ii) To direct the respondents to declare the applicants as selected candidates as per their merit and issue further direction to consider the case of applicants for appointment on the basis of their merit in Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2012.
iii) To direct the respondents to consider the candidature of applicants and recommend their case for appointment against appropriate post on the basis of their final merit in Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2012.
iv) To direct the respondents to process the case of applicants for their appointment against the respective post and zones as per the final result dated 08.02.2013 and declared the action of respondents in issuing revised result dated 30.05.2013 as illegal and unjustified.
v) To declare the action of respondents in resorting to post examination scrutiny and analysis by experts as illegal and unjustified.
vi) To allow the OA with cost.
vii) Any other orders may also be passed as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.
6. No counter reply has been filed by the respondents in spite of several adjournments having been given to them for this purpose.
7. The matter was heard today. Counsel for applicants in the lead case as well as counsel for applicants in other connected cases argued that the present set of OAs are covered by the order of the Tribunal in OA No.2839/2014 (along with other related OAs), which were allowed vide order the Tribunals common dated 17.09.2014. It was, therefore, argued that the present set of applicants are also entitled for the same relief as has been granted to the applicants in OA No.2839/2014.
8. Mr. S.M. Arif, counsel for respondent-SSC was also heard. It was conceded by him that the present set of cases are identical to OA No.2839/2014.
9. We have considered the arguments for both parties. Having perused the order dated 17.09.2014 in OA No.2839/2014, we find that the applicants in these OAs are similarly placed to those covered by the order dated 17.09.2014.
10. It appears from the order in OA No.2839/2014 that earlier in a similar set of matters, the Tribunal in OA No.1352/2013 had quashed show cause notice issued by the respondents as per para 24 of the order. It further appears that in OA No.930/2014, it has been observed by the Tribunal in its order dated 07.03.2014 that even the second show cause notice suffered from lack of material to substantiate the allegations other than those mentioned in the first show cause notice issued to the applicants in that OA by the SSC. The second show cause notices were quashed in OA No.930/2014. Thereafter, the Tribunal was approached by applicants in OA No.2839/2014 along with other applicants, wherein similarly placed candidates had approached the Tribunal challenging the show cause notices in those OAs that were issued by the SSC, on the ground of being completely arbitrary, unjustified and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal in that OA had observed that subsequent to the passing of order in OA No.930/2014 there was no pleading nor any averments that additional material had been collected to substantiate the allegations against the applicants to justify issuing a second show cause notice. It was also noted that the entire process had been unduly delayed and the future of the applicants continued to remain uncertain. Ultimately, the Tribunal in para 26 of the order dated 17.09.2014 in OA No.2839/2014 observed as under:-
26. We have also noted above that the chronology of events would also lead to the conclusion that the entire process has been unduly delayed and that nearly 2 years and 6 months have elapsed from the date of issue of the notice for CGLE-2012 and nearly 1 year and 7 months have elapsed since respondents declared the result on 08.02.2013. The future of the applicants continues to be uncertain. We, therefore, conclude that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the respondent-SSC to issue a second show cause notice in the present set of OAs. The Allahabad Bench also had passed final orders on the basis of the first show cause notice without giving opportunity to the SSC to issue any further show cause notice.
11. Ultimately, vide paras 27 & 28 of the order in that OA, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the show cause notice and allowed the OA and issued direction to the respondents which is reproduced below:-
27. Having regard to above, the impugned show cause notices in these OAs not being legally sustainable are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to declare the results of the applicants in these OAs, and allocate them to the service purely on the basis of merit, if found successful in the examination. While doing so, the respondents shall fully conform to the rules and instructions for declaration of results and for allocation of service to those applicants who are found successful on the basis of pure merit. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
28. OA No.2839/2014 along with connected OAs are accordingly allowed by this common order with aforenoted directions. No order as to costs.
12. In view of the above facts and materials, we find that the cases of the applicants in these OAs are identical to those of the applicants in OA No.2839/2014. We, therefore, conclude that for the same reasons as held by the Tribunal in OA No.2839/2014, the show cause notice issued to the applicants in these OAs cannot be legally sustained and are, therefore, quashed and set aside. The applicants would be entitled to the same benefits as granted by the Tribunal to the applicants in OA No.2839/2014. Respondents shall, therefore, comply with the directions of the Tribunal in orders dated 17.09.2014 in OA No.2839/2014 and shall complete the entire exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. OA No.1287/2014 in MA No.1119/2014 & MA No.1121/2014 along with other connected OA No.3176/2014 in MA No.2727/2014, OA No.3548/2014, OA No.3549/2014, OA No.3551/2014, OA No.3552/2014, OA No.3555/2014 in MA No.3908/2014, OA No.3570/2014 in MA No.3902/2014, OA No.3571/2014 in MA No.3901/2014, OA No.4243/2014, OA No.4492/2014, OA No.4663/2014 and OA No3988/2014 in MA No.3471/2014 & MA No.3489/2014 are allowed by this common order with the aforenoted directions. With the passing of orders in these OAs, none of the MAs survive. No costs.
14. Let a copy of this order be placed in each of the case file of these OAs.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Ashok Kumar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/jk/