Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Aashish Gupta vs Central Board Of Excise And Customs on 24 August, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-3299/2014
Reserved on : 14.08.2015.
Pronounced on :24.08.2015.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Sh. Aashish Gupta,
S/o Sh. Durga Prasad, age 26 years
R/o G-8/7, Second Floor, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017 (Presently posted as Inspector
Central Excise, Chandigarh). . Applicant
(Applicant in person)
Versus
1. Central Board of Excise and Customs
Through Chairperson,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Central Excise,
Through Chief Commissioner,
Central Revenue Building,
I.P. Estate, ITO,
New Delhi-110002.
3. Central Excise,
Through Chief Commissioner,
Central Revenue Building,
Plot No.19, Sector-17C,
Chandigarh-160017.
4. Staff Selection Commission,
Through its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. .. Respondents
(through Sh. Satish Kumar and Sh. S.M. Arif, Advocates)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicant was a candidate for Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2012. He was selected with rank No. 255 in the merit list and was allocated the post of Inspector, Central Excise. The applicant had given Delhi under the state code F as his first preference. His grievance is that despite directions from the recruiting agency i.e. Staff Selection Commission (SSC) that allotment of Commissionerate by the recruiting departments be done strictly on the basis of the Pin Codes given in permanent address of the applicant, the respondents have allotted the Commissionerates on the basis of their own instructions, which provided that such allotment be done on the basis of merit-cum-preference. The applicant had made a representation on 24.03.2014 in this regard but the same was rejected by the respondents vide their letter dated 28.07.2014. He has, therefore, filed this O.A. seeking the following relief:-
(a) direct CBEC and Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi respondent no.1 & 2 to implement the guidelines/directions regarding allocation/nomination issued by Staff Selection Commission vide their letter No.3/2/2011-P&P-I dated 21.02.2013 ANNEXURE A-1.;
(b) quash/set aside Letter No.A-12034/SSC/2/2012-Ad.III(B) dated 16.09.2013 of the Respondent no.1 being wrong, arbitrary, contrary to guidelines of the recruiting agency and is bad in law;
(c) to allow the OA with costs; petitioner be given posting at Delhi State.
(d) any other directions or orders which this Honble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be to meet the ends of justice.
2. The contention of the applicant is that the respondents No.1 to 3 have erred in allotment of Commissionerates as they have not followed the directions issued by the recruiting agency i.e. Respondent No.4. He has produced letter No. 3/1/2011-P&P-I dated 21.02.2013 issued by the SSC to their Regional Directors, para (iii) of which reads as follows:-
The dossiers of candidates selected for the posts of Inspector (Income Tax), Inspector (Central Excise), Tax Assistant in CBDT and Tax Assistant in CBEC may be sent centrally to the designated officer in CBEC/CBDT CBDT/CBEC should be clearly advised that State-wise allotment already made by the Commission should be strictly followed. Candidates will be allotted to different Commissionaires within the same State on the basis of the pin codes given in permanent address of candidates. According to him, the respondents issued their own Instructions vide letter No. A-12034/SSC/2/2012-Ad.III(B) dated 16.09.2013, which provided for allotment of Commissionerates on the basis of merit-cum-preference. According to him, not following the guidelines of the recruiting agency was wrong as it was the duty of respondents No. 1 to 3 to implement the directions of respondent No.4.
3. The respondent No.4-SSC have filed reply in which they have stated that the relief sought by the applicant was from respondents No. 1 to 3 and as such they were not concerned with the subject matter of this O.A. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have also filed their reply in which they have stated that for direct recruitment for the post of Inspectors 29 vacancies were reported for Delhi and 46 for Chandigarh for CGLE, 2012. Against these vacancies, for unreserved category to which the applicant belongs, 15 vacancies were reported for Delhi and 22 for Chandigarh. The SSC conducted the selection and sent the dossiers of the selected candidates to the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Board vide their letter No. A-12034/SSC/2/2012-Ad.III(B) dated 16.09.2013 intimated that SSC had clubbed the vacancies of Delhi and Chandigarh under code preference F and forwarded the dossiers to Delhi Zone with a direction to allocate the dossiers between Delhi and Chandigarh on merit-cum-preference basis. Moreover, since against 75 reported vacancies, only 57 candidates were selected, the candidates allocated to Delhi and Chandigarh were also proportionately reduced. In all, 10 dossiers were allocated to Delhi for unreserved category whereas 15 dossiers were allocated to Chandigarh in the same category. The allocation has been done strictly on the basis of merit-cum-preference as would be evident from the table reproduced below:-
INSPECTORS CGL 2012 DELHI S. No. NAME DOB CAT RANK IST PREF IIND PREF State in permanent address 1 DEEPAK NARWAL 3.01.86 UR 99 F U Haryana 2 GAURAV SINGH 05.10.86 UR 108 F U Haryana 3 SANGEETA 11.10.88 UR 110 F U Haryana 4 RAJESH KUMAR YADAV 02.12.86 UR (OBC) 160 F Delhi 5 MOHD WASIM 05.08.86 UR 164 F U Uttara Khand 6 DEEPAK 30.10.88 UR 170 F U Haryana 7 SUMIT KUMAR 21.10.89 UR(OBC) 189 F U Haryana 8 YADU BHARDWAJ 22.03.87 UR 210 F U Rajasthan 9 DHARMENDER 20.02.90 UR 215 F V Haryana 10 ASHISH CHAWLA 29.02.88 UR 224 F U Haryana CHANDIGARH 1 MANOJ VERMA 14.05.89 UR (OBC) 67 U F 2 PRADEEP SHEORAN 02.07.88 UR 136 U F 3 NAVEEN JINDAL 03.03.86 UR 187 U F 4 NITIN KUMAR 27.09.89 UR 227 F U 5 KARAN VOHRA 07.08.88 UR 247 U F 6 RAGHU SHARMA 15.04.89 UR 254 U F 7 AASHISH GUPTA 02.10.87 UR 255 F 8 LOKESH KUMAR 28.12.90 UR 276 U F 9 RAHUL JAIN 27.09.89 UR 317 F U 10 KULDEEP 19.12.91 UR 318 U F 11 SHALINI DUHAN 21.11.90 UR 339 F U 12 LAV BISHT 11.03.88 UR 343 F U 13 TAMANPREET SINGH 10.12.89 UR 346 U F 14 VIJAY KUMAR
04.10.85 UR 347 F U 15 BHUVNESH GUPTA 21.12.87 UR 350 U F 3.1 The respondents have further stated that the last person to be allocated Delhi Zone under the UR category is one Sh. Ashish Chawla, whose rank was 224 whereas the applicants rank was 255. Even one Sh. Nitin Kumar, whose rank was above the applicant and who had given Delhi as his first preference could not be allocated Delhi Zone. The applicants contention that he should have been allocated Delhi since he belongs to that place is not acceptable since more meritorious candidates had given Delhi as their preference and have been allocated the same. No person having rank lower than the applicant in the UR category has been allocated Delhi. Since the allocation has been done on the basis of merit-cum-preference, the contention of the applicant that candidates having permanent addresses of Uttara Khand/Rajasthan/Haryana as revealed from their Pin Codes should not have been given Delhi, cannot be accepted.
4. We have heard both sides and have perused the material on record. In our opinion, it is now well settled position that allocation of zones has to be done strictly on the basis of merit-cum-preference. From the pleadings of the rival parties, it is evident that this method has been followed by the respondents in allocating the zones. The applicants contention that the zone allocation should have been on the basis of Pin Codes as advised by SSC, in our opinion cannot be accepted. In fact, we consider this direction of SSC to be wholly unnecessary. The allocation of zone is done by the appointing Ministry/Department and there was no need for SSC to advise the department to adhere to allocation on the basis of Pin Code. From the material placed on record, it is also clear that the respondents have not interfered with the States allocated by the SSC. In this case, SSC had clubbed the vacancies of Delhi and Chandigarh under Code preference F and had forwarded all the dossiers to Delhi Zone. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have thereafter followed the system of allocating zones on the basis of merit-cum-preference. Thus, we notice that all the 10 candidates allocated to Delhi had given first preference as F, which stands for Delhi. Some of them had given their send preference as U, which stands for Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. We also notice that all the candidates allocated to Delhi have ranked higher than the applicant. Thus, there has been no violation of the principle of zone allocation on the basis of merit-cum-preference. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the action of respondents No. 1 to 3.
5. On the basis of what is stated above, we are of the opinion that this O.A. is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /Vinita/