Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Praveen Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission on 29 October, 2015
OA No.655/15 Praveen Kumar v. SSC
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A.NO.655 OF 2015
New Delhi, this the 29th day of October, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
AND
HON'BLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
...........
Praveen Kumar,
Aged 30 years,
Son of Shri Suraj Bhan,
Resident of House No.36,
Village Hiranki, P.O.-Alipur,
Delhi 110036 ...... Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms.Sriparna Chatterjee)
Vs.
Staff Selection Commission,
through its Chairman,
Northern Region, Block No.12,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110003 ...... Respondent
(By Advocate: Mr.Gyanendra Singh)
......
ORDER
RAJ VIR SHARMA,MEMBER(J):
In the present O.A., the applicant originally prayed for the following reliefs:
"a. direct the Respondent to accommodate the Applicant in against any other post in any other Ministry/Department/Office within Delhi in lieu of the post against which the Applicant has been selected. b. pass any other order(s) deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice."
Page 1 of 11
OA No.655/15 Praveen Kumar v. SSC
2
1.1 At the commencement of the hearing, Ms.Sriparna Chatterjee,
learned counsel appearing for the applicant, made an oral prayer on behalf of the applicant to delete the words 'within Delhi', after the word 'Office', and before the word 'in', appearing in relief (a) above. Mr.Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, opposed the said prayer and submitted that deletion of the words 'within Delhi', as sought by the applicant, amounts to amending the original application, and that such amendment is not permissible at the stage of hearing. In this connection, Mr.Gyanendra Singh invited our attention to Order 6, Rule 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Per contra, Ms.Sriparna Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that even if the aforesaid deletion of words 'within Delhi' appearing in relief (a) is presumed to be an amendment of the pleadings of the applicant, such amendment will not change the scope and nature of the O.A., and that such amendment being necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties, the Tribunal is well within its power and jurisdiction to consider and allow the same at the present stage.
1.2 After going through the records, and considering the rival contentions, we allow the oral prayer made by Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 1.3 Thus, in the present O.A., we have to consider as to whether, or not, the applicant has made out a case for issuance of a direction by the Tribunal to the respondent to accommodate him against any other post in Page 2 of 11 OA No.655/15 Praveen Kumar v. SSC 3 any other Ministry/Department/Office in lieu of the post against which he has been selected.
2. The brief facts of the case, which are not disputed by either side, are as follows:
2.1 The applicant was an SC candidate of Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) Examination, 2013, for recruitment to the posts of Data Entry Operator (DEO) and Lower Division Clerk (LDC). He qualified in the written test and was called to appear for Data Entry Skill Test (DEST)/Typing Test. As per the terms of the recruitment notice and the letter issued by Staff Selection Commission (SSC) calling upon him to appear for DEST/Typing Test, he filled in and submitted option form for preferences of Ministry/Department/Office. The duly filled in option form submitted by the applicant is reproduced below:
"STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION Combined Higher Secondary Level Examination 2013 (Option form for Preferences of Deptt./Office) (This is only a specimen to be sent with AC for Skill Test. Not to be kept in Dossier. Options are to be filled in by the Candidates, on-line, during the Skill Test. A signed print out thereof to be kept in dossier) Roll No.2201173531 Name of the Candidate PRAVEEN KUMAR Code of Deptt. Office for OPTIONS FOR THE POST OF LDC (with Grade Pay of Rs.1900/-) Code Name of Deptt/Office A Armed Forces HQRs B Bureau of Police Research & Devel.
C Cabinet Sectt. D Central Administrative Tribunal E Central Bureau of Investigation F Central Bureau of Narcotics G Central Hindi Dte. H Central Vigilance Commission I Controller Gen. of Accounts Page 3 of 11 OA No.655/15 Praveen Kumar v. SSC 4 J Controller Gen. of Defence Accounts K Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal L Deptt. of Electronic & Info. Tech. M Deptt. of Telecommunication N Dte. Of Enforcement, Deptt. Of Revenue O Deptt. Of Food and Distribution P Election Commission Q Intelligence Bureau R Ministry of External Affairs S Min. of Power T Min. of Environment Forests U Min. of Health & Family Welfare V Min. of Road Transport & Highways W Min. of Urban Development X National Informatics Centre Y President's Secretariat Z Other Min./Deptt./Offices, if any
OPTIONS FOR THE POST OF LDC(with Grade Pay of Rs.1900/-) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 R K N O U V W M S T P D H L I Z Y C J E B G A F X Code of Deptt./Offices for OPTIONS FOR THE POST of Data Entry Operator with Grade pay Rs.2400/-
Code Name of Deptt./Office A Comptroller and Auditor Gen. of India B Controller Gen. of Accounts C Other Min./Deptt./Offices, if any
OPTIONS FOR THE POST of Data Entry Operator (with Grade Pay of Rs.2400/-
1 2 3 A B C Sd/ Parveen Kumar Signature of Candidate"
2.2 The applicant appeared for DEST/Typing Test. Respondent- SSC published the list of successful candidates, wherein the applicant was assigned rank No.2456 and nominated to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways for appointment to the post of LDC. Another list was published by respondent-SSC showing the nomination status of the successful candidates, and the applicant was again shown therein as being nominated to Page 4 of 11 OA No.655/15 Praveen Kumar v. SSC 5 the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways for appointment to the post of LDC.
2.3 The SC category candidate, who obtained the lowest marks of 112.25, was nominated to Armed Forces HQrs (Code 'A') for appointment to the post of LDC. The SC category candidate, who obtained the lowest marks of 112.75, was nominated to Central Administrative Tribunal (Code 'D') for appointment to the post of LDC. The SC category candidate, who obtained the lowest marks of 114.5, was nominated to Central Bureau of Narcotic (Code 'F') for appointment to the post of LDC. The SC category candidate, who obtained the lowest marks of 113.5, was nominated to Central Hindi Directorate (Code 'G') for appointment to the post of LDC. The SC category candidate, who obtained the lowest marks of 112.25, was nominated to Controller General of Accounts (Code 'I') for appointment to the post of LDC. The SC category candidate, who obtained the lowest marks of 111, was nominated to Controller General of Defence Accounts (Code 'J') for appointment to the post of LDC. The SC category candidate, who obtained the lowest marks of 112.75, was nominated to Department of Electronic & Information Technology (Code 'L') for appointment to the post of LDC. The SC category candidate, who obtained the lowest marks of 114, was nominated to Election Commission (Code 'P') for appointment to the post of LDC. The SC category candidate, who obtained the lowest marks of 105.75, was nominated to other Ministries/Departments/Offices (Code 'Z') for appointment in the post of LDC. The applicant, who obtained 114.50 Page 5 of 11 OA No.655/15 Praveen Kumar v. SSC 6 marks, was nominated to Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (Code 'V') for appointment to the post of LDC.
2.4 Respondent-SSC, vide its letter dated 21.7.2014, nominated 94 qualified candidates and forwarded dossiers of 74 qualified candidates, including the applicant, to the Directorate General, Boarder Roads, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Seema Sadak Bhawan, Delhi 110010, for appointing them to the post of LDC after verifying their documents and completing the pre-appointment formalities, such as, character antecedent verification and medical examination.
2.5 General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF), Dighi Camp, Pune-15, vide its letter dated 14.1.2015 (Annexure A/17), called upon the applicant to report on 23.2.2015 at 08:00 hours, along with the required documents, for undergoing medical examination preceding his appointment to the post of LDC.
3. In the above backdrop, the applicant has contended that the Border Roads Organization consists of the Border Roads Development Board (BRDB), and General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF). GREF is the Execution Force under the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways only for the purpose of budgetary allocation, but so far as its administrative control is concerned, it is under the Ministry of Defence. It has lately been decided that from the next budget, the administrative and financial controls over the Border Roads Organization would be with the Ministry of Defence. There has been a mistake on the part of the Border Roads Organization in Page 6 of 11 OA No.655/15 Praveen Kumar v. SSC 7 submitting a requisition to SSC for nominating qualified candidates for appointment to the post of LDC through the Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) Examination, 2013. SSC wrongly nominated him to the Border Roads Organization/GREF which is virtually under the Ministry of Defence. As per the preference given by him, SSC ought to have nominated him to the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways for appointment to the post of LDC. When SC category candidates, who scored less marks than that of his marks, have been nominated to other Ministries/Departments/Offices under Codes 'A', 'D', 'F', 'G', 'I', 'J', 'L', 'M', 'P', and 'Z', SSC ought not to have nominated him to the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways/Border Roads Organization for appointment to the post of LDC.
4. Per contra, SSC has contended that the requisition made by the Directorate General, Border Roads, clearly stated that the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways is the Ministry to which said office has been attached. The selected candidates are nominated to different user Departments on the basis of their merit-cum-preference. SSC's role is limited to recruitment and nomination of suitable candidates for deployment in various Departments. The notice of examination clearly indicated that all posts carry All India Service liability, and that on selection the candidates may be asked to serve anywhere in the country.
5. Upon perusing the materials available on records, and after considering the rival contentions, we find no substance in the contentions of the applicant. Save and except making a bald statement that the Border Page 7 of 11 OA No.655/15 Praveen Kumar v. SSC 8 Roads Organization/General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF) is under the control of the Ministry of Defence, the applicant has not produced before this Tribunal any material in support of the said statement. In the requisition (Annexure R/2) placed with SSC for nominating candidates for appointment to the post of LDC, it has been clearly mentioned that the Directorate General, Border Roads, is attached to and functioning under the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways. Therefore, it cannot be said that SSC wrongly nominated him to the Directorate General, Border Roads for appointment to the post of LDC. As has been stated by the applicant, the Border Roads Organization/Directorate General, Border Roads, comprises Border Roads Development Board, and General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF). SSC, vide its letter dated 21.7.2014 (Annexure R/1), has nominated 94 selected candidates belonging to SC and other categories to the Directorate General, Border Roads, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways for appointment to the post of LDC. It is for the user Department, i.e., Directorate General, Border Roads, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, to allocate the said selected candidates either to BRDB or GREF, and SSC has no role to play in the said matter. The Directorate General, Border Roads, has allocated the applicant to GREF. GREF, vide its letter dated 14.1.2015 (Annexure A/7), called upon the applicant to report to it on 23.2.2015 at 08:00 hours, along with the required documents, for completing the pre-appointment formalities, such as, character antecedent verification, medical examination, etc. As per paragraph 13 of the examination notice, Page 8 of 11 OA No.655/15 Praveen Kumar v. SSC 9 preference for Ministry/Department/Office was taken from the applicant at the time of DEST/Typing Test. Note II, below paragraph 13 of the examination notice, clearly stipulated that options once exercised were final and no modification/addition would be allowed. In his option form submitted at the time of DEST/Typing Test, the applicant indicated 25 preferences, and his 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th preferences were for Ministry of External Affairs (Code 'R'), Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Code 'K'), Directorate of Enforcement, Department of Revenue (Code 'N'), Department of Food & Distribution (Code 'O'), Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Code 'U'), and Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (Code 'V') respectively. He was nominated to the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, which was his 6th preference. It transpires from the final result that SC category candidates, who obtained the lowest marks of 124.25, 148.25, 144, and 116.76 were nominated to the Ministry of External Affairs (Code 'R'), Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Code 'K'), Directorate of Enforcement, Department of Revenue (Code 'N'), and Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Code 'U') respectively, and no candidate belonging to any category was nominated to the Department of Food & Distribution (Code 'O') for appointment to the post of LDC. It is, thus, found that the applicant having obtained 114.50 marks, could not be nominated to Ministry of External Affairs (Code 'R'), Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Code 'K'), Directorate of Enforcement, Department of Revenue (Code 'N'), and Page 9 of 11 OA No.655/15 Praveen Kumar v. SSC 10 Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Code 'U'), which were his 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th preferences. As already noted, no candidate belonging to any category was nominated to the Department of Food & Distribution (Code 'O'). Therefore, he was nominated to the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (Code 'V') which was his 6th preference. When as per his 6th preference, the applicant was nominated to the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, the question of considering his 7th preference or other preferences did not arise. Therefore, the nomination of other SC category candidates, who obtained less marks than that of the applicant, to other Ministries/Departments/Offices, as per their merit-cum-preference cannot be said to be fraught with any illegality. The terms and conditions of the examination notice, and the option exercised by the applicant, being binding on him and SSC, the applicant cannot be allowed to raise a grievance against the decision of SSC nominating him to the Directorate General, Border Roads, under the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, and seek issuance of a direction by the Tribunal to SSC to accommodate him against any other post in any other Ministry/Department/Office in lieu of the post against he has been selected/nominated. Furthermore, on the basis of their merit-cum-preference, the selected candidates were nominated by SSC to the user Departments as early as on 20.5.2014 as per the requisitions placed with SSC, and the vacancies in the post of LDC must have been filled up by making appointment of the qualified candidates.
Page 10 of 11
OA No.655/15 Praveen Kumar v. SSC 11
6. In the light of our above discussions, we hold that the O.A. is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (SUDHIR KUMAR)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
AN
Page 11 of 11