Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vijay Pal Singh Son Of Shri Subhash Chand vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through Its Chief ... on 5 September, 2006
ORDER Shanker Raju, Member (J)
1. None appeared for the applicant even after the second call. On the last date of hearing, i.e., on 28.8.2006, it was directed that if nobody appears for the applicant, the matter would be proceeded under Rule 15 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Accordingly, by invoking Rule 15 ibid, the present OA is being decided after hearing Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned Counsel for respondents.
2. By virtue of this OA, applicant is challenging the process of selection adopted by the respondents in recruitment of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police notified by a notification dated 13.4.2005. Applicant, who applied for the post under OBC category, had been examined physically with other parameters but when it comes to interview, he was not called and his name was not in the list of persons selected for the post.
3. Applicant in this OA assails this action of the respondents on the ground that no opportunity was accorded to him to show his driving skill and as a licence given to person, who drives the vehicle, is not justifiable.
4. It is also stated in the OA that whereas documents on record establish that five minutes are given to each candidate to adjudge the driving skill and oral test would have taken about 42 hours per day, which is not possible. As such, the methodology adopted and the time taken by the respondents shows about the manner in which the selection has been made.
5. It is further stated in the OA that some of the candidates, who are likely to be called on 7.4.2006, have managed to get their interview conducted on call.
6. A justification tendered in the counter reply shows that the candidates, who have scored not less than 40% marks in the written examination, will have to be called for practical test. As the applicant has not reached to the grade and has not obtained merit in the respective category, i.e., OBC, he was not declared qualified in the interview.
7. It is trite that in the matter of selection, it is the prerogative of the authorities to lay down ways and means and methodology to conduct the selection. The entire scope for interference is when such a selection process is mala fide and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Mere averment to challenge the selection process when it is not mala fide or illegal in any manner is not sufficient by the unsuccessful candidate, who has the tendency to challenge the selection.
8. In the present OA, having not established in any manner the shortcomings in the selection process, the applicant, who has failed to achieve the grade for interview, has rightly not been called and selected. The others, who have scored more marks than the applicant and qualified in the interview, have been selected.
9. In the result, OA is found bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.