Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ravinder Kumar S/O Satbir Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 3 February, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.1900 of 2011 Reserved on : 31st January, 2012 Date of decision : 3rd February, 2012 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Ravinder Kumar S/o Satbir Singh, R/O Qr. No.235, Police Lines, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018. Applicant ( By Shri Shyam Babu, Advocate ) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Players Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. Joint Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 4. Deputy Commissioner of Police/Establishment, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 5. Chief Information Commission through its Information Commissioner, Room No.5, Club Building, Near Post Office, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067. Respondents ( By Shri Amit Anand, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Ravinder Kumar, a candidate for the post of Constable (Driver), the applicant herein, cleared all the tests, but failed in trade test and was thus not appointed on the post as mentioned above. In the present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks appointment on the post of Constable (Driver) with all consequential benefits.
2. The facts as may emanate from the pleadings of the parties and the accompanying documents reveal that when the applicant was unable to make it to the post of Constable (Driver), having failed in the trade test, he sought information under the Right to Information Act on 23.10.2009, and demanded the following documents:
1. Video recording of C.D. of photographs be supplied.
2. Number of candidates appeared in Trade Test.
3. Number of marks secured by the Applicant in Trade Test. On 14.11.2009, the information officer in response to the application of the applicant replied stating that the information could not be supplied as the recruitment process was on. Reminders of the applicant brought no tangible result. That being so, the applicant made an application to the chief information officer on 19.01.2010. On the same date, he addressed a letter to other authorities also complaining about non-supply of the information sought for by him. When the matter came up before the Central Information Commission on 23.06.2010, the following order was passed:
The Commission has received a complaint dated 19.1.2010 from Sh. Ravinder, Q. No. 235, Police Line, Vikas Puri, New Delhi- 110018 u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, wherein he has complaint to the commission that he had sought certain information from you but he has not received any response so far within the stipulate period under the RTI Act, 2005.
2. While enclosing a copy of the Complaint, you are hereby directed to provide requisite information to the Complainant ion 03 weeks time as per the provisions of law.
3. Any failure on your part in complying with the order of the Commission in the above mentioned time frame would render you liable for penal action under section20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
4. You are also directed to send the following to the Commission by Speed Post or Dasti:
a. A copy of the information, if any, sent to the Complainant b. You explanation for not supplying information to the Complainant within the stipulated time under the RTI Act. Despite the orders aforesaid, the public information officer, on 18.02.2010, gave the following reply to the applicant:
i. Driving trade test, video recording during the driving trade test C.D cannot be supplied under the RTI Act.
ii. Driving trade test examination was only of qualifying nature iii. In the written examination 66 number were secured and in general category the minimum marks were 75.
iv. You are disqualified in trade test (forward) v. Since you were disqualified in forward trade test, therefore, you cannot be declared as qualified On 28.10.2010, the Central Information Commission, being the appellate authority, wrote to the applicant as under:
The Commission has received the appeal/complaint from Sh. Ravinder against you. The Commission directs you to appear before it in the chamber of Honble Information Commissioner Mrs. Sushma Singh, at the above address of the Commission with the relevant document and your submissions with regard to the Appellants appeal/complaint on 15.11.2010 at 12.30 p.m. for the hearing. The copy of the appeal/complaint is also forwarded herewith for ready reference of the CPIO. You may also ensure the presence of any other officer whose assistance has been sought by you under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 alongwith you (CPIO) and Appellate Authority at the time of hearing On 15.11.2010, the Central Information Commission passed the following order:
Shri Ravinder, Appellant, filed and application dated 23.10.2009, seeking information regarding the examination conducted by Delhi Police for recruitment of Police Driver.
During the hearing the Appellant submits that copy of the video of Trade Test carried out by Delhi Police and copy of photograph taken during the test has been denied to him under the provision of Section 8(1) (e) and 8(1) (J) of the RTI Act, 2005, and been denied to him.
After hearing the Respondent and on perusal of the relevant documents on file, the Commission is of the view that the information asked for cannot be denied under any of the provisions of RTI Act. The Respondents are therefore to provide a copy of the video of Trade Test and copy photograph taken during the test and also a copy of answer sheet of the Appellant within 3 time on receipt of this order.
The matter is disposed of accordingly. On 13.12.2010, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Establishment), wrote the following letter to the applicant:
On scrutiny of videography/photography and relevant records relating to trade test of the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police Examination, 2009, held on 16.10.2010, it has been found that you were declared qualified in Driving (Reverse) test you were declared disqualified and you 02 photographs related to this test can be provided.
It is, therefore, requested that you may report in Establishment Branch, 6th Floor, MSO Building, Police Hdqrs. I.P. Estate, New Delhi- 110002 on any working day immediately between 10 AM to 5 PM for obtaining requisite records mentioned hereinabove after depositing the requisite fee as admissible under the Rules Despite the orders as referred to above, it is pleaded that the applicant was supplied only two photographs. It is his case that whereas, in one photograph he is there, the other photograph would not even belong to him, and that he was not shown the CD of forward driving test nor the same was provided to him. The applicant made a note in his letter dated 20.12.2010 that he was given two photographs, out of which one was his, but the second would not belong to him. The applicant received yet another letter dated 21.12.2010 from DCP (Establishment), which reads as follows:
With reference to Central Information Commission, New Delhis order Dated 15.1.2010 in cases No. CIC/SS/A/2010/000453 on the above subject, you are requested to report in Recruitment Cell, 9th Floor, MSO Building, Police Headquarters, New Delhi-110002 on any working day immediately between 10 AM to 05 PM to obtain necessary information documents from this Hdqrs. Constrained under the circumstances, the applicant made a representation on 18.01.2011, to which a reply was sent on 10.03.2011, which reads as follows:
The following documents/photographs are provided to you as desired
i) Photocopy of Answer Sheets of you written test.
ii) Photocopy of Answer Key of the written test.
iii) You photographs of Trade Test of Driving/Forward.
You were qualified in the Driving (Reverse) test, however, disqualified in Driving (Forward). The photographs of those candidates who qualified the trade test were not taken. However, the photographs of candidate who disqualified in the trade test (forward) is being provided to you. It is also informed to you that the Honble High Court of Delhi has observed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.368/2010 that The Petitioner has been declared disqualified in the Trade Test by a competent board of three senior officers of the Respondent against whom there is no allegation of either bias or mala fide, presumably no such allegation could be made against them. It is in wake of the facts and circumstances, as mentioned above, that the applicant has filed the present OA with the relief already indicated above.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have entered appearance and by filing their counter reply contestd the cause of the applicant. In para 5A of the reply, it has been mentioned that the applicant was shown the videography relating to his trade test and he was also called to collect the copy of the videography vide letter dated 27.07.2011. The matter is also contested on the basis of judgment of a single Bench of the Honble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.368/2010 in the matter of Ravi Kumar Yadav v Commissioner of Police, Delhi, decided on 18.02.2010.
4. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. Shri Shyam Babu, learned counsel representing the applicant, would vehemently contend that the very fact that the respondents would not supply the requisite information to the applicant, and in particular, the videography of his trade test, would be in itself enough to conclude that the applicant had cleared the trade test, and that the non-supply of the requisite information would be presumptive of the fact that the applicant was wrongly rejected in the trade test. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find no merit whatsoever in the contention of the learned counsel as noted above. It is true that there was initial resistance on the part of the respondents to provide the videography of the trade test of the applicant, but surely and admittedly, the applicant was asked to come and collect the same, but he would not do so. Confronted with the position aforesaid, learned counsel representing the applicant would submit only that the applicant at the time when the respondents had asked him to collect the videography of his trade test, had already filed present OA, wherein one of the reliefs sought for is to call for the videography of the applicants trade test, and, therefore, there was no need at that stage for the applicant to collect the videography of his trade test. Present OA came to be filed on 24.05.2011 and came up for motion hearing on 26.05.2011, whereas the applicant was asked to collect the videography on 27.07.2011. Once, the applicant was asked to collect the videography, even though after filing of the present OA, if he was so sure that he had cleared the trade test and had been wrongly and illegally declared failed, he could have well collected the same and tried to prove his allegation by simply craving the court to watch the same. He would not do so and has chosen to take a plea which cannot be justified, that since the offer was made after filing of the OA, there was no need for him to collect the same. The very fact that the applicant when offered to be supplied the videography of his trade test would not collect the same, can also lead to the conclusion that he knew somewhere that he may not have cleared the trade test. Be that as it may, a similar matter from the same very selection process, on the same very grounds, came to be adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Ravi Kumar Yadav (supra). Relevant part of the order reads as follows:
This Court is not convinced with this plea made on behalf of the petitioner because I am of the view that even if the CD is called for, the CD can at best show a person sitting on drivers seat with steering in his hands and this cannot show whether a person has qualified the reverse driving test or not. The petitioner has been declared disqualified in the Trade Test-II by a competent Board of three senior officers of the respondent against whom there is no allegation of either bias or mala fide, presumably no such allegations could be made against them. We are convinced that when there is no allegation of mala fide against any of the members constituting the selection board and when it is a case of selection jointly by three senior officers, the plea of the applicant that he was wrongly failed in the trade test cannot have any substance.
5. Before we may part with this order, we may mention that Shri Shyam Babu, learned counsel representing the applicant, on the basis of the pleadings made in the rejoinder, would contend that the department is known for its nefarious designs. It is pleaded that for the recruitment of drivers in question, a material irregularity/scam was discovered which was reported in the newspapers as well. The news item stated that more than 200 candidates were selected for the post of driver who were having bogus licenses and documents. This irregularity/scam, it is pleaded, would clearly reflect on the credibility of the recruitment board. It would not be possible to rely upon newspaper reports, particularly as we are aware of the facts of the case referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant, as cancellation of candidature of so many persons for their being in possession of fake or bogus licenses came for adjudication before us in OA No.76/2011 and many other connected cases, decided on 18.05.2011. One of us (V. K. Bali, Chairman) was a Member of the Bench. The facts of the case aforesaid reveal that the applicants in the OAs had appeared in the tests for the post of Constable (Dvr.) in Delhi Police on the basis of the recruitment for the year 2009 and were provisionally selected. They were required to submit their papers, including the driving licence, for scrutiny by the competent authority. The applicants submitted their documents including driving licenses, which were from Mathura and Agra. It is at that time that the department found out the licences to be bogus, and put the applicants to notice and cancelled their candidature. It was rather a case where the department proceeded against those who were trying to obtain public employment on bogus documents.
6. Finding no merit in this Original Application, we dismiss the same, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/