Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mukesh Kumar vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 24 February, 2025
1
OA No.2618/2023
Item No. 78 (C-4)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
O.A. No. 2618/2023
This the 24th day of February, 2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath , Member (A)
Mukesh Kumar
GROUP 'C' POST-DELHI POLICE
aged about 42 years.
S/o Prem Chand, R/o 176, Adhyapak Nagar, Nangloi. Delhi-110041
..Applicant
(By Advocates:Mr. Aditya Kumar, Ms. Ila Nath)
Versus
1. Union of India Through the Secretary, Department of Personnel
& Training, Ministry of Personnel, P G and Pensions Government of
India North Block. New Delhi-110001
2. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman, Block No-12,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. Delhi Police Through the Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police
Headquarters, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110001
4. Indo Tibetan Border Police Through its Director General, Block -
II, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
5. Pankaj Kumar Aged about 39 years, S/o Vinod Kumar Kanaujia
Roll No. 5105010454 Rank/Position in Merit List: SL\03945
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Gyanendra Singh with Mr. S K
Tripathi, Mr. Amit Yadav, Mr. Subhash Gosai)
2
OA No.2618/2023
Item No. 78 (C-4)
O R D E R(Oral)
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J) The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following relief:-
"i. to direct the official respondents to produce the entire relevant records pertaining to instant matter;
ii. to quash and set-aside the impugned Result of Recruitment of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police and CAPFs Examination, 2022: Declaration of Final Result along with List of candidates recommended for appointment dated 16/08/2023 insofar as the last selected candidates, i.e., the private respondents have been recommended for appointment as Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police against the main quota of Scheduled Caste and the sub-quota of Ex- Servicemen; as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice;
iii. to direct the official respondents to consider recommending the applicant for appointment as Sub- Inspector in the Delhi Police which was the applicant's first preference, and to which post he is entitled in view of his higher marks than the last selected candidates, i.e., the private respondents;
iv. to award exemplary costs on the official respondents for causing undue harassment;
v. pass any other or further order/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. Applicant had participated in the recruitment exercise conducted by the SSC for Sub-Inspector (SI) in Delhi Police and CAPFs - 2022. The applicant has scored 226 marks in the said examination.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an Ex-Serviceman (ESM) who belongs to the SC category. After the completion of all requisite formalities he had been offered the post in ITBP, however, the applicant was not interested in the same as his first preference was that of Delhi Police (DP). He submits that 3 OA No.2618/2023 Item No. 78 (C-4) the SSC while compiling the result of this examination had botched the results of the ESM. ESM posts are of two categories:-
(i) The ESM (Special Category) - for Ex-Servicemen who have completed the Commando course and possess the certificate for the same.
(ii) The ESM (General category)- for Ex-Servicemen who do not possess the commando course certificate.
4. Counsel submits that the applicant ought to have been considered under the ESM (General) category as an SC candidate.
5. The issue of the botching up by theSSC while preparing the result of the ESM has already been dealt with by us in OA No. 1458/2024 vide order dated 03.09.2024. Counsel for the applicant submits that this order of the Tribunal has been implemented by the SSC, thus acknowledging their mis-management.
6. Pursuant to the order passed by us, the Respondent i.e. SSC have issued the revised result on 18.11.2024. He submits that if the applicant was considered as ESM (General) - SC category, he should have been offered the post of SI in Delhi Police. Instead, the applicant has been left high and dry.
7. On an earlier occasion the counsel appearing on behalf of Delhi Police had handed across the bar a letter dated 29.11.2024, which is reproduced herein below:-
"Sir, Kindly refer to SSC's letter No. File No. 22/1/2023- PEA(NR) dated 21.11.2024, on the subject cited above.
The revised result in respect of Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Roll No. 2201041420 of S.T in D.P and CAPFs Exam, 2022 received from SSC vide letter referred above, has been examined in this Hdqrs, and it was found that the following points/facts 4 OA No.2618/2023 Item No. 78 (C-4) may be clarified before taking further action into the matter:-
(i) As per final result of S.1 in D.P and CAPFs Exam, 2022 declared by SSC on 16.08.2023 a total 13 candidates of Ex-servicemen (Genl. Category) have) already been selected against the 13 advertised vacancies of ESM (Genl. Category). As such, no vacancy exists. Further, if we will consider the revised result of the applicant, it will exceed the number of advertised vacancies.
(ii) The instant O.A No. 2618/2023 filed by applicant i.e Mukesh Kumar is still pending/sub-judice before CAT.
(iii) In O.A No. 1485/2024 Ravi Saini Vs. C.P., Delhi and 1488/2024- Sharvan Kumar Vs. C.P., Delhi filed by the ESM) candidates of same recruitment i.e SI(Exe.) Exam, 2022, the Hon'ble CAT vide order dated 03.09.2024 and 04.09.2024 has directed SSC to issue merit list of ESM(Genl. category) and take action in accordance with the merit of each candidate, However, no decision/response has been received from SSC in above OAs. The applicant Le Sh. Mukesh Kumar is also a candidate of SI(Exe.) Exam, 2022 and belongs to ESM(Genl. category). As such, it may not be feasible to take further necessary action at this stage.
In view of the above, it is requested that the reply of above said. clarifications may kindly be furnished to this Hdqrs. for taking further course of action into the matter. The dossier of the applicant is returned herewith"
8. As can be noted from the letter, the Recruitment Cell of the Delhi Police does acknowledge that the results were revised, and that the applicant is in the list of provisionally selected candidates. However, there is no reason advanced by them for not offering the appointment to the applicant. We are informed that the last selected candidate in the ESM category has scored 209.53 marks, whereas the applicant has scored 226.37 marks.
9. Further, one SC candidate in the ESM category had been arrayed as Party Respondent No. 5 has also filed his affidavit, Para 8 of which reads as under:-
5 OA No.2618/2023Item No. 78 (C-4) "8. That, in reply to the grounds mentioned in the Original Application under its Para 5, it is stated that the applicant's record in respect of the subject post / examination would be available with Respondent No. 1 to 4 and therefore they would only be able to comment on the grounds and that the Respondent No. 5 cannot comment on the grounds.
However, the Respondent No. 5 states in reply to the grounds that the main grievance of the applicant is that he was not recommended for the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police despite having higher marks than the Private Respondents and despite mentioning the said post as his first preference. In this regard it is submitted that the Respondent No. 5 secured a total of 214.80028 marks in the subject examination which is higher than the cut off decided for the subject post & reservation (SC & Ex-Servicemen) i.e. 209.53698. As per Para 4.3 of the result notification dated 16 Aug 2023 (placed as Annexure A-1 (colly) to OA), Cut off marks are nothing but the marks obtained by the last selected candidate and therefore the Respondent No. 5 is not the last selected candidate meaning thereby that his appointment at the subject post cannot be put under question and challenged. Further, the fact also remains that the Respondent No. 5 has bonafidely joined the post only on the instructions of Respondent No. 1 to 3 and has already completed more than 07 months of training."
10. From the above statement, it is clear that Respondent No. 5 has obtained 214 marks which is lower than the marks scored by the applicant.
11. From the result (annexed with the OA) itself it is clear that the Post Code - A stands for Delhi Police, Category 1 is that of SC and the sub-category 3 code stands for ESM and the vacancies are two, which means that there are two vacancies in the SC category for the ESM category.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to the order dated 29.09.2023, wherein the selection of the last candidate in the SC category had been made subject to the outcome of this OA.
6 OA No.2618/2023Item No. 78 (C-4)
13. Since, it has now come on record that the applicant has scored higher marks than Respondent No. 5 and the last selected candidate; he deserves a chance of consideration for the post of SI in the Delhi Police.
14. We would also like to note that this litigation has been necessitated due to the botch-up and mismanagement as noted by us on the earlier occasion also, by the SSC. The applicants/candidates who are competing for the recruitment cannot be faulted for this. SSC is one of the premier recruiting agencies and therefore such a mistake by them is not expected. They are advised to put their house in order.
15. In view of the above and keeping in view our earlier order also in OA No. 1458/2024 this OA is disposed of with a direction to the SSC and Delhi Police to consider the candidature of the applicant for the post of SI in ESM (SC Category). If the applicant is otherwise eligible respondents offer him the letter of appointment. Since botch-up is on the part of the respondents, let a supernumerary post under his category i.e. ESM (SC Category) be created by the competent authority, which shall be adjusted against the vacancies of the next recruitment cycle. The respondents are directed to complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
16. This OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, we make it clear. No costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member(A) Member(J)
/ss/