Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Coram vs Staff Selection Commission on 4 September, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A.NOS.145,146,195,234,296, 302,379 & 2049 of 2014 New Delhi, this the 4th day of September, 2014 CORAM: HONBLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER & HONBLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER . In OA 145/14 Ms.Renu Hooda, D/o Sh.Balbir Singh Hooda, R/o H.No. 340, D Block, Lane No.8, Prem Nagar, Nasafgarh, New Delhi . Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra) Vs. 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Northern Region, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 3 2. Commissioner of Police, PHQ, MSO Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi ` . Respondents (By Advocates: Shri S.M.Arif for R-1 & Shri Daphne Menezes for Ms.Rashmi Chopra) In OA No.146/14 Ms.Sapna Suryan, D/o Sh.Ratendra Kumar Suryan, R/o H.No.RZ 185, Shiv Block, Raghu Nagar, Pankha Road, New Delhi 45 . Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra) Vs. 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Northern Region, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 3 2. Commissioner of Police, PHQ, MSO Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi ` . Respondents (By Advocates: Shri S.M.Arif for R-1 & Shri Daphne Menezes for Ms.Rashmi Chopra for R-2) In OA No.195/14 1. Ms.Sangeeta, d/o Sh.Bijender Singh, R/o G-41, Sec.16B, Dwarka, Delhi 78 2. Ashish Chauhan, S/o Sh.Rajender Singh, R/o VPO-Balwari, Dist. & The Rewari (Haryana) 3. Devendra Singh Mehra, S/o Sh. Nandan Singh Mehra R/o 296-B Pocket-N Sarita Vihar, Delhi 4. Gaurav, S/o Sh.Devender Kumar, R/o RZ 153 B Block Gopal Nagar, Near Prem Nursery Najafgarh New Delhi 110043 5. Sunil Kumar, S/o Sh.Joginder R/o Vill Dohki, P.O. Kitlana, The-Charkhi Dadri, Dist. Bhiwani, State Haryana 6. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Sh.Udai Singh, R/o Vill Putha Sundra, P.O. Partapur, Meerut 7. Ashu Saini, S/o Sh.Ramesh Chander Saini, R/o RZ K-32, New Roshan Pura, Najafgarh, N.Delhi 110043 8. Tulika, D/o Sh.Jai Prakash, R/o Flat No.2002, Type IV, Delhi Admn.Flats, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi 7 9. Tushar Yadav, S/o Sh.Bhupendra Singh Yadav, R/o C/53, Near Soda Factory, Nandnagri, Modinagar (UP) 10. Amit Kumar, S/o Sh. Om Prakash, R/o H.No.619/30, Bhiwani Road By Pass, Jind Near Ramswarup Chakki, Jind (Haryana) Pin 126102 . Applicants (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra) Vs. 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Northern Region, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 3 2. Commissioner of Police, PHQ, MSO Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi ` . Respondents (By Advocates: Shri S.M.Arif for R-1 & Shri Daphne Menezes for Ms.Rashmi Chopra for R-2) In OA No.234/14 1. Sh.Ravinder Kumar, S/o Sh.Jai Bhagwan, R/o D-5/14, Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi 89 2. Sh.Harender Singh, S/o Sh.Shekhar Singh, R/o Qtr.No.360, Police Colony, Shalilmar Bagh, New Delhi 88 3. Sh.Puneet Sharma, S/o Naresh Chand, R/o Q.No.15, P.S. Maurya Enclave, Near N.D.Market, Pitampura, Delhi Applicants (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra) Vs. 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Northern Region, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 3 2. Commissioner of Police, PHQ, MSO Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi ` . Respondents (By Advocate: Shri S.M.Arif for R-1) In OA No.296/14: Sh.Lokesh Ahlawat, s/o Sh.Satbir Singh, R/o 52-B, Platinum Enclave, Sector 18, Rohini, New Delhi-89 .. Applicant. (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra) Vs. 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Northern Region, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 3 2. Commissioner of Police, PHQ, MSO Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi ` . Respondents (By Advocates: Shri S.M.Arif for R-1 & Smt. Pratima Gupta for R-2) In OA No.302/14: Sh.Yogesh Kumar, s/o Sh.Dharamvir Singh, R/o V.P.O.-Aun, Tehsil-Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani (Haryana) 127310 Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra) Vs. 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Northern Region, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 3 2. Commissioner of Police, PHQ, MSO Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi ` . Respondents (By Advocates: Shri S.M.Arif for R-1 & Smt. Alka Sharma for R-2) In OA No.379/14: Ms.Jyoti Singh, D/o Sh.Chattur Singh, Presently residing at C-377, First Floor Sector 22, Noida 201301 Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra) Vs. 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Northern Region, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 3 2. Commissioner of Police, PHQ, MSO Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi ` . Respondents (By Advocate: Shri S.M.Arif for R-1) In OA No.2049/14: Pankaj S/o late Sh.Azad Singh, R/o Block B1/18, M.S.Flats Peshwa Road, Gole Market, New Delhi 110001 .. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra) Vs. 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Northern Region, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 3 2. Commissioner of Police, PHQ, MSO Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi ` . Respondents (By Advocate: Shri S.M.Arif for R-1) ORDER Raj Vir Sharma, Member(J):
All these eight Original Applications involving common questions of law and fact have been heard together, and we propose to dispose of the same by this common order.
2. In these O.As., the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside the medical reports declaring them unfit for selection to the post(s) of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces, Assistant Sub Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force, and Intelligence Officer in NCB, and for directing the respondent-Staff Selection Commission to treat the applicants as medically fit for the said posts. The applicants have also prayed for a direction to the respondent-Staff Selection Commission to further consider the applicants in the recruitment process.
3. Brief facts of the applicants case are that Respondent no.1-Staff Selection Commission (SSC), vide its notice published in the Employment News dated 16.3.2013, invited applications for recruitment to the post(s) of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces, Assistant Sub Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force, and Intelligence Officer in NCB. In response thereto, the applicants made applications. They were subjected to preliminary written examination and main written examination held in June 2013 and October 2013 respectively. They appeared for and cleared the Physical Endurance Test in October 2013. Thereafter, they were subjected to undergo medical examination. In the medical examination, they were declared unfit. On appeals, their re-medical examination was conducted. On re-medical examination, they were also declared unfit. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicants have approached this Tribunal in the O.As.
4. Respondent no.1-SSC has filed counter replies to O.A. Nos.145, 146, 195, 296 and 302 of 2014 wherein it is, inter alia, stated that as per the medical standard indicated in the recruitment notice, medical examination and re-medical examination of the applicants were conducted by the designated Medical Officer and Re-Medical Board/Review Medical Board respectively. They were declared unfit on both the said occasions. As per Note III of Para 10(D) of the recruitment notice, the decision of the Re-medical Board/Review Medical Board is final and therefore, there is no question of further considering the cases of the applicants in the recruitment process.
4.1 Respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Delhi, has also filed counter replies to O.A. Nos.145, 146, 195, 296 and 302 of 2014 wherein the claim of the applicants has been strongly resisted.
4.2 In OA Nos.234, 379 and 2049 of 2014 the respondents have not filed their counter replies.
5. The applicants have filed rejoinder replies controverting the statements made by the respondents in their counter replies.
6. On 1.8.2014 the O.As. were placed for hearing. At the commencement of hearing, Shri S.M.Arif, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1-SSC in all the O.As. raised a preliminary objection as to the lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain and decide the O.As. inasmuch as the dispute as raised in the O.As. not only relates to recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police but also relates to recruitment to the posts in armed forces. The learned counsel wanted to produce before the Tribunal copies of orders passed by the Tribunal in the past covering the point. Therefore, the matters were adjourned to 4.8.2014 for hearing. On 4.8.2014, we heard Shri Ajesh Luthra, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Shri S.M.Arif, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 as well as Shri Daphne Menezes on behalf of Ms.Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel representing respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Delhi. We also heard Smt.Pratima Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 in OA No.296 of 2014 and Smt. Alka Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 in OA No.302 of 2014.
7. Shri S.M.Arif, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1-SSC invited our attention to pages 2 and 3 of the recruitment notice and Section 2(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and submitted that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the O.As. because the dispute raised therein also relates to the recruitment to the posts in armed forces. In support of his contention, Shri Arif filed copies of the order dated 14.7.2011 passed by the Tribunal in OA Nos. 2384 and 2387 of 2011, Mamta Chaudhary, etc. vs. Union of India and another; the order dated 21.2.2012 passed in OA No.551 of 2012; and order dated 29.8.2013 passed in OA No.2138 of 2012, Shri Girdhari Lal Yadav vs. Union of India and another.
8. Per contra, Shri Ajesh Luthra, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that since in the present O.As. the applicants are challenging the medical reports declaring them unfit for the posts of Sub Inspector of Police in Delhi Police and Intelligence Officer in Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and other posts in CAPF and CISF, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the O.As.
8.1 Shri Luthra also argued at length on merits of the case and placed reliance on decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Bhan Khatana vs. UOI & ors, W.P. ( C ) No.13461 of 2009, decided on 14.8.2012 and on a decision of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal in Deepesh K.Kakkadankandy vs. Union of India and others, in OA No.61 of 2011, decided on 20.7.2012.
9. At the outset, we would like to deal with the preliminary objection raised by Shri S.M.Arif, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1-SSC.
10. Page 1 of the recruitment notice (Annexure A/2) contains important instructions to candidates. Instruction no.1 clearly states that the SSC will hold an All India Examination for recruitment to the post of Sub Inspectors in Delhi Police (DP) and Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Assistant Sub Inspectors in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and Intelligence Officer in Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB and that the Examination will comprise of Written Examination in two phases Physical Endurance Test, Medical Examination and Interview/Personality test. At pages 2 & 3 of the recruitment notice, the details of the posts, for which the recruitment examination is held, have been mentioned as follows:
F.No.3/1/2013-P&P-II. The Staff Selection Commission will hold an examination for Recruitment of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police, CAPFs, Assistant Sub Inspector in CISF and Intelligence Officer in NCB Examination, 2013 on Sunday the 10th June 2013 for Paper I and 18th August 2013 for Paper II.
Sub Inspector in CAPFs:
The post carries pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 in Pay Band 2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200 and is classified as Group B Non-Gazetted, Non-Ministerial as per letter No.I-45023/4/2010-Pers.II dated 29th March 2011 from Ministry of Home Affairs.
Sub Inspector in Delhi Police:
The post carries pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 in Pay Band 2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200 and is classified as Group C by Delhi Police.
Assistant Sub Inspector in CISF:
The post carries pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 in PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- and is classified as Group C.
Intelligence Officer in NCB:
The post carries pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 in Pay Band 2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- and is classified as Group B Non-Gazetted, Non-Ministerial.
Post Code (Preference for Post may be indicated in Application form) Sub Inspector in Delhi Police Sub Inspector in Border Security Force (BSF) Sub Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Assistant Sub Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Sub Inspector in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Sub Inspector in Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBPF) Sub Inspector in Sashtra Seema Bal (SSB) Intelligence Officer in Narcotics Control Bureau(NCB)
11. It is not in dispute that BSF, CISF, CRPF, ITBPF and SSB are armed forces of the Union. Section 2(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 mandates that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to any member of the naval, military or air forces or of any other armed forces of the Union. As the grievance raised by the applicants is relating to the recruitment and appointment of the applicants as Sub Inspector in Border Security Force (BSF), Sub Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Assistant Sub Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Sub Inspector in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Sub Inspector in Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBPF) and Sub Inspector in Sashtra Seema Bal (SSB), this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to entertain the O.As. The question relating to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain and decide such dispute is no longer res integra. After considering the provisions of Sections 2(a), 14 and 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and Article 323-A of the Constitution of India, the Full Bench of this Tribunal in Satendra Narain Pandey Vs. Union of India and others, OA 2478/91, decided on 5.2.1993 (CAT (F.B.) Vol.III page 183), held thus:
7. The Tribunal has not been conferred jurisdiction to adjudicate all types of disputes of the specified personnel. Jurisdiction is conferred only in relation to their recruitment and service matters. Other types of disputes of these personnel are outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Section 2(a) is an exception to Section 14. Therefore, when Section 2 (a) says that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to a member of the armed forces of the Union, it means that provisions of the Act shall not apply to adjudication of disputes relating to recruitment and service matters. In other words, the disputes in regard to recruitment and conditions of service of members of the armed forces of the Union are outside the purview of the Act. Mere membership of the armed forces of the Union is not enough to oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal would be ousted only if the dispute relates to recruitment to the armed forces. We may illustrate the meaning with examples. Let us take the case of a person who had held a civil post under the Union of India, resigned from the said post and became a member of the armed forces of the Union. If after his becoming a member of the armed force of the Union, he applies to the Tribunal to recover arrears of pay in regard to the civil post held by him, can his application to the Tribunal be rejected on the ground that he was a member of the armed force of the Union on the date of the application? The answer can only be No. The reason is that the dispute which he has raised has nothing to do with his membership of the armed forces of the Union. Suppose, a member of the armed force of the Union after his retirement from the armed force is appointed to a civil post under the Union. If he has any dispute regarding his conditions of service as an erstwhile member of the armed force of the Union, he would not be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as the dispute relates to his conditions of service as the member of the armed forces of the Union even though on the date he invokes the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, he was not a member of the armed forces of the Union. Hence, on a true interpretation of Section 2 (a) of the Act, we hold that the Act does not apply to matters relating to recruitment to armed force of the Union and to service matters of members of the armed force of the Union.
12. In Mamta Chaudharys case (supra), the dispute related to recruitment to the post of CPO in CISF/CRPF. A Division Bench, following the decision of the Full Bench in Satendra Narain Pandeys case (supra), held thus:
it is clear that the Full Bench has categorically held that mere membership of the Armed Forces of the Union is not enough to oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 2 (a) of the Act and what is necessary to oust the jurisdiction is whether the dispute relates to recruitment to the Armed Forces of the Union. As already stated above, the grievance highlighted by the applicants in these OAs is regarding recruitment and appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in CISF, as such, we are of the view that the provisions of Section 2 (a) of the Act is clearly attracted and the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is ousted to decide the matter relating recruitment of the applicant to the post of Sub-Inspector of Para Military Forces, Central Police Organization pursuant to the advertisement issued by the applicant (Annexure A-1) for filling up the posts of Sub Inspector in CRPF, CISF, ITBP, SSB, BSF and the applicant being female candidates were eligible to appear for two posts with CISF and CRPF. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, we reiterate that this Tribunal is not the proper forum for redressal of the aforesaid grievances in view of provisions contained under Section 2 (a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Therefore, both these OAs are disposed of being not maintainable and applicant will have to approach the proper forum for redressal of their grievances.
13. In OA No.551 of 2012 and in Shri Girdhari Lal Yadavs case (supra), the Tribunal also took the same view.
14. It is, therefore, clear that this Tribunal has consistently been taking the view that disputes relating to recruitment to posts in the armed forces are outside its jurisdiction in view of the statutory bar contained in Section 2(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In the instant case, as per the recruitment notice (Annexure A/2), the SSC has conducted common written examination, physical endurance test, medical examination and interview/personality test not only for the posts of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and Intelligence Officer in Narcotics Control Bureau but also for other posts in armed forces as already indicated above. Therefore, in our considered view, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the O.As.
15. In the light of the above discussions, we hold that the O.As. are not maintainable before this Tribunal and are thus liable to be rejected. The applicants, if so advised, may approach appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance, if any.
16. Accordingly, the O.As. are rejected. The interim orders passed by the Tribunal in the O.As. automatically stand vacated. The Registry shall keep the original order in the case file of OA No.145 of 2014 and certified copy thereof in each of the case files of OA Nos.146,195,234,296,302,379 and 2049 of 2014. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (ASHOK KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AN