Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Tamanna Rani vs Union Of India on 20 May, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A.No.2518/2012
Order reserved on: 15.05.2014
Order pronounced on:20.05.2014
Honble Shri George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Tamanna Rani
D/o Shri Devender Pal
R/o H.No.C-13, Gali No.05,
Amar Colony, Kamruddin Nagar,
Nanglor,
Delhi-110041. Applicant
By Advocate: Ms. Priyanka Bhardwaj.
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary (Revenue),
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi.
2. Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC)
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
Government of India,
9th Floor,
Hudco Vishala Building,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066.
3. Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions,
Government of India,
North Block,
New Delhi.
4. Staff Selection Commission,
CGO Complex,
New Delhi. ..Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Rattan Lal for Respondents No.1 to 3
Shri S.M. Arif for Respondent No.4)
ORDER
By Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J) The Applicant has qualified in the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2006 conducted by Respondents under `General Category and was ranked in the merit list at position no. SLD/00222. Having qualified the examination of the post of Inspector, she was asked to submit her option for allotment of zone. The zone was to be allotted as per preference given by the candidates, those having better marks were to be considered first as compared to those having lesser marks. The Applicant states that if the Respondents had gone by the principle of merit-cum-preference, the Applicant would have got the zone of her first choice. However, she was allotted zone which was never her first choice. The Applicant was issued appointment letter in 2011 and she joined services without any delay in 2011 itself. After joining, she found that the respondents did not follow the principle of merit-cum-preference but in fact they followed a different criteria. What the respondents did was that those SC/ST/OBC candidates who qualified under `general standards were given their choice zone against unreserved vacancies having better merit. According to the Applicant, once she was selected as `General Category candidate, she could not have been treated as `reserved class and adjusted against reserved vacancy in choice zone. Moreover, after this exercise, some of the reserved category candidates who did not come under their own merit, were given zone of choice over and above the applicant who was much senior to them in the merit list. She had made representation and moved this Tribunal as well and in compliance of the order, the Applicants case has been considered and rejected by the order dated 19.06.2012. She has, therefore, filed the OA again seeking the following main reliefs:-
(i) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2012 and direct the respondents to allocate the zone to the applicant as per her merit and by following the principal of merit-cum-preference and declare their act of allocating zones against the rules as illegal and unjustified and accordingly set aside such orders.
(ii) To direct the respondents to allocate Delhi Zone to applicant consequent upon her selection and appointment as Central Excise Inspector.
2. The Respondents in their reply have stated that the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC recommended against unreserved vacancies were to be adjusted against reserved vacancies if by doing so, they could get the zone of their higher preference. Thereafter, the candidates recommended against the vacancies reserved for SC/ST/OBC, were to be allocated zones strictly by following the principle of merit-cum-preference. Since some SC/ST/OBC candidates recommended against unreserved vacancies would have got adjusted against reserved vacancies and some unreserved vacancies would have remained unallocated and equal number of SC/ST/OBC candidates would have remained without allocation of zone, these SC/ST/OBC candidates were allotted the zones against the vacancies remaining unallocated in unreserved category.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We find that this case is fully covered by the order of this Tribunal in OA No.403/2013 - Jai Prakash and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors., decided on 22.04.2014, in which the Tribunal observed as follows:
9. From the above circulars, one thing is crystal clear that those reserved category candidates who have qualified in `general category on their own merit but normally will not get choice category because of their merit position, can be given the choice category by adjusting them against reserved vacancies in that category. Basically the respondents have relied on this to state that no mistake has been committed. However, the applicants have raised a very specific issue which is that once the above principle is followed and as a consequence some unreserved vacancies arise, the department cannot pick up reserved candidates from down below in the merit list (who have not qualified on their own merit as `general candidates) and fill up unreserved vacancies giving them choice. In fact, from the following portion of the letter dated 2.08.2011, it appears that the department has done exactly that:
Consequently some reserved candidates at the bottom of list in respective category have been allocated against unreserved vacancy so as to match the total number of candidates recommended with the total number of vacancies available.
10. We feel that the department has clearly misunderstood the intent of the abovesaid two OMs and made a mistake. However, this Tribunal cannot go into the exercise of actually allocating zones as per the stated principles. The respondents are, therefore, directed to reconsider the representations of the applicants and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the receipt of a copy of this order. While passing the order, one thing which the respondents have to clearly keep in mind is that their policy as stated in the above circulars of 2010 and 2008 does not envisage that candidates at the bottom of the list in the respective category will be adjusted against unreserved vacancies in that category and doing that has been a mistake on their part.
4. Therefore, this OA is also disposed of by quashing the impugned order dated 19.06.2012 and passing the same direction as in the aforesaid case.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (G.GEORGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Rakesh