Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sandeep Kumar S/O Shri Baldev Singh vs Delhi Police on 5 November, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.3520/2012 MA No.2941/2012 New Delhi, this the 5th day of November, 2012 Honble Mr. George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A)
1. Sandeep Kumar s/o Shri Baldev Singh R/o 3168 Shaki Vihar, Meetapur, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044
2. Mahesh Kumar s/o Shri Anand Prakash R/o A-10, Tihar Central Jail, Delhi
3. Parmeshwar Lal Bhaskar S/o Shri Ratna Ram Bhaskar R/o Ghasso, Laxman Garh, Sikhar (Raj.)
4. Jitender Yadav S/o Shri Netra Pal Yadav R/o RZ, B-52, Old Roshanpur, Najafgarh, Delhi
5. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Banwari Lal R/o RZE 11, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh, Delhi
6. Prakash Singh S/o Shri Surat Singh R/o VPO Dalanwas, Distt. Mahender Garh, Hr
7. Mohar Singh S/o Shri Jagannath R/o Gopi Nath Jiwali, P.O. Jalpali Sikar (Raj.)
8. Kamal Kumar Meena S/o Shri S.S. Meena R/o VPO Tilwar, Rajgarh, Alwar (Raj.)
9. Krishan Pal S/o Shri Laxmi Chand R/o Halalpur, Chapprauli, Baghpat, U.P.
10. Kuldeep S/o Shri Baljit R/o VPO Deenpur, Najafgarh, Delhi
11. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Om Prakash R/o D-4/27, Vashist Park, Janak Puri, Delhi
12. Vijesh Saini S/o Shri Ramavtar Saini, R/o Vill. Banwas, Khetri, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
13. Vedpal S/o Shri Mahabir Singh R/o 468-A, Saiyad Gali, Azadpur, Delhi
14. Rajender Prasad Meena S/o Shri Radha Krishan Meena R/o Rohda Kala, P.O. Khuri Kala, Dausa (Raj.)
15. Sagar Mal S/o Shri Ram Nath R/o Krishan Pura, P.O. Bhojpur Sikar (Raj.)
16. Parlahad Singh S/o Shri Mali Ram R/o Tiwari Ki Dhani, Sikar (Raj.)
17. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Sukha Ram R/o Krishan Pura, Bhojpur, Sikar (Raj.)
18. Rakesh S/o Shri Sukhbir Singh R/o 336, Khera Kurdh, Delhi-110082
19. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Kishori Lal R/o Karota, Narnaul, Mahendergarh, Haryana
20. Meethalal Meena S/o Shri Ram Dhan Meena R/o Nirjharna, Lalshot, Dausa (Raj.)
21. Jainaram S/o Shri Rewat Ram R/o Jalakh, Bilara, Jodhpur (Raj.)
22. Rajiv Kumar S/o Shri Harbir Singh R/o 1/3998/A, Ram Nagar, Vitar Loni Road, Shahdara Delhi-32
23. Maha Singh S/o Shri Ved Prakash R/o VPO Bolani, Rewari, Haryana
24. Sahi Ram Meena S/o Shri Ram Deva Ram R/o Vill. Gadriya, P.O. Kameriya, Jayal Distt. Nagaur (Raj.)
25. Bijender S/o Shri Raj Kumar R/o VPO Makrana, Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani, Haryana
26. Pardeep Kumar S/o Shri Satpal Singh, R/o D-1/321, Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110093 .Applicants (Through Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, Advocate) Versus
1. Delhi Police Through Commissioner of Police P.H.Q., I.T.O., Delhi
2. Ishwar Singh, IPS D.C.P. Establishment, P.H.Q., Delhi
3. Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi .Respondents (Through Shri Amit Anand, Advocate) Order Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) An advertisement was published in Employment News/Rozgar Samachar for filling up 752 posts of Driver in Delhi Police. Copy of the advertisement is placed at Annexure-A/2. In the advertisement, a Physical Endurance Test (PET) was prescribed for all candidates, details of which were as under:-
PHYSICAL ENDURANCE TEST (QUALIFYING) FOR ALL CANDIDATES INCLUDING EX-SERVICEMEN AND DEPARTMENTAL CANDIDATES (AGE-WISE) WILL BE AS UNDER:-
AGE RACE 1600 MTRS. LONG JUMP HIGH JUMP Upto 30 years 7 minutes 12 = Feet 3 = Feet Above 30 years to 40 years 8 minutes 10 = Feet 3 = Feet Above 40 years 9 minutes 10 = Feet 3 Feet
2. In response to the above advertisement, the applicants in this OA applied for the post and received call letters. They were called for the PET on 8.10.2012 and the test was conducted but according to the applicants, the candidates were directed to finish 1600 mtrs race in 7 minutes only for all categories and age groups whereas in the advertisement, for persons upto the age of 30 years, it was 7 minutes, for persons from 30 to 40 years, it was 8 minutes and for those above 40 years of age, it was 9 minutes.
3. It is the contention of the applicants that for the first batch of 40 persons, the candidates were allowed to do 1600 mtrs race in 8 minutes and, thereafter, the Delhi Police orally announced that the race should be completed in 7 minutes. It is also stated by the applicants that subsequently on 9.10.2012, a corrigendum stating that only 7 minutes would be allowed for 1600 mtrs race, was published. The present OA has, therefore, been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
i) To quash the notice dt. 09.10.2012 and consider the applicants for race 1600 mtrs. in 8 minutes as per advt. 02.06.2012.
ii) To give the direction to Delhi Police for consider the applicants and conduct the race of the applicants and may resume its selection procedure as per advt.
iii) The result/ recruitment process may be with held or suspend till the pendency of this Original application before Honble Central Administrative Tribunal.
iv) Any other relief, which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the applicant.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that recruitment for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police is made under Rule 17-A(XX) of Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment Rules) 1980 and Standing Order No.208/2010. Accordingly, applications were invited from suitable candidates through advertisement published in 13 leading Newspapers on 30.05.2012 and a detailed advertisement in Employment News/Rozgar Samachar dated 02.06.2012. As per Standing Order No.208/2010 issued on 04.08.2010 (Annexure-R/1), for 1600 mtrs race, only 7 minutes time was allowed for qualifying and those who qualified in 1600 mtrs race would appear in long jump and high jump for which specifications were provided. It is conceded by the respondents that the advertisement published on 02.06.2012 wrongly stated that for various age levels, different times would be required for qualifying. On realizing the mistake, a corrigendum was issued in the same 13 leading Newspapers in two insertions dated 9th and 10th October, 2012. It is also stated by the respondents that the PET was conducted from 08.10.2012 to 18.10.2012 at PTS/Wazirabad, Delhi. 45801 candidates were called for appearing in Physical Endurance Test and Measurements Test (PE & MT) out of which 12580 candidates qualified and issued call letters for further appearing in written test scheduled to be held on 11.11.2012.
5. During the course of the arguments, it was clarified by the respondents that the problem arose only on the first day of the PET i.e. 08.10.2012. An oral announcement was made before starting of 1600 mtrs race that only 7 minutes time would be allowed and, therefore, at the time when the race was conducted, it was in the knowledge of all the candidates that 7 minutes and not 8 or 9 minutes, depending on the age, would be allowed. It was also stated by the learned counsel for respondents that an offer was made to those candidates who appeared for 1600 mtrs race on 08.10.2012 that if they so wished, they could take the PET on any subsequent day till 18.10.2012. Accordingly, some candidates participated in the race and some opted out. Therefore, among the applicants in this OA, there are some who took the PET on 08.10.2012 and could not qualify. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel for respondents stated that the respondents were willing to accommodate those applicants who did not take part in 1600 mtrs race by calling them again at any time before 11.11.2012, which is the date of the written examination.
6. We have heard both the learned counsel and perused the record on file.
7. It is a fact that the advertisement dated 2.06.2012 indicated different times for qualifying the 1600 mtrs race for different age levels but subsequently a corrigendum was issued on 9th and 10th October, 2012, after the PET had started on 8.10.2012. As far as the candidates who appeared for the PET on 8.10.2012 are concerned, it has been clarified by the learned counsel for respondents that an oral announcement was made stating that the time for 1600 mtrs race was 7 minutes for all the candidates. The fact that the oral announcement was made regarding this on 8.10.2012 has also been mentioned in the OA. Though the applicants in the OA have stated that the first batch of candidates in each round was allowed to complete the race in 8 minutes, this fact has categorically been denied by the respondents. We are aware that in this matter a mistake has been made by the respondents while issuing the advertisement which they have tried their best to correct by issuing corrigendum in newspapers dated 9th and 10th October, 2012 as well as making oral announcements at the time of PET on 8.10.2012 that the race has to be completed in 7 minutes. They have stated that the same time of 7 minutes was kept for all the candidates for PET and 12580 candidates have qualified and have been called for the written test on 11.11.2012. They have fairly conceded that in view of overall facts, if any candidate who has not participated on 8.10.2012 is willing to appear for PET on any date prior to 11.11.2012, the respondents would ensure the same but they are not willing to consider the cases of those candidates who took the test on 8.10.2012 and did not qualify as it would amount to giving second chance to some persons.
8. There are two options before us, one to cancel the PET held so far and direct the respondents to hold the test again and second to allow the offer of the respondents to those applicants who were scheduled to take the test on 8.10.2012 but did not participate due to time being changed and who have filed the present OA.
9. We are satisfied that the respondents, once they realized their mistake, took all remedial measures that were possible to take for candidates who appeared for PET that they are judged by the same yardstick. But because of the error in the advertisement, there are some candidates who did not participate in the PET on 8.10.2012. We are also aware of the fact that 752 vacancies have to be filled for which 12580 candidates have already qualified in the PET. Therefore, cancelling the already conducted PET and doing it again does not seem to be a good alternative. In our view, an opportunity to participate in the PET must be ensured for those who could not participate due to error in the advertisement.
10. In view of the above, we direct the respondents to hold a fresh PET before 10.11.2012 and allow those of the applicants of this OA or any other persons who are not before us, who appeared for the PET on 8.10.2012 but did not participate due to confusion regarding time for qualifying the test. It would not be fair to give this opportunity to those candidates who appeared for the PET on 8.10.2012 after the announcement had been made that time for qualifying the 1600 mtrs race would be 7 minutes and who did not qualify. With the above directions, the OA is disposed of.
( Manjulika Gautam ) ( George Paracken ) Member (A) Member (J) /dkm/