Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rupesh Kumar Jha vs Staff Selection Commission on 11 January, 2023
1 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
OA No. 4005/2017
With
OA No. 946/2020
OA No. 1362/2020
OA No. 2090/2020
OA No. 3516/2017
OA No. 2371/2021
OA No. 973/2020
OA No. 2040/2022
OA No.1927/2020
OA No.3929/2017
Order reserved on: 13.12.2022
Order pronounced on: 11.01.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr.Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
OA 4005/2017
1. Rupesh Kumar Jha
S/o Sh. Hirday Narayan Jha
R/o Vill + P.O. Gajahara, Via-Khutauna,
PS-Ladaniya, Distt. Madhubani, Bihari-847227
Aged about 23 years
2. Hemant Kumar Meena
S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad Meena
R/o V.P.O. Bhordon Ka Bas, Teh.-
Dantaramgarh,
Distt. Sikar, Rajasthan- 332703
Aged about 25 years
3. Mayank Porwal,
S/o Sh. Anil Kumar
R/o 20, Guruhai Mohal, Auraiya,
U.P. 206122
Aged about 23 years
2 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
4. Tarun
S/o Sh. Surender
R/o Gali No. 3, Shasthri Colony, Gohana Road,
Sonipat, Haryana-131001
Aged about 27 years
5. Kuldeep Choudhary
S/o Sh. Sudhir Kumar
R/o H.No. 47, Village & Post-Razapur
Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP-201002
Aged about 22 years
(Group C)
(Candidates toward CHSL-2016)
... Applicants
Vs.
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &
Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman (Head Quarter)
Block No. 12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
3. Staff Selection Commission (Northern Region)
Through its Regional Director,
Block No. 12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
4. Staff Selection Commissioner (Central Region)
Through its Regional Director
8 A-B, Beli Road, Allahabad-211002
(Respondent No. 4 to be served through
Respondent No. 2)
.... Respondents
3 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
OA 946/2020
Vivek Kumar
S/o Late Ashok Kumar
R/o H. No. 403, Gali No. 4
Lakhpat Colony Part-2
Meethapur Extension,
Badarpur, Delhi-110044
Aged about 29 years
(Group C)
(Candidate toward CHSL-2018)
... Applicant
Vs.
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &
Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman (Head Quarter)
Block No. 12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
3. Staff Selection Commission (Northern Region)
Through its Regional Director,
Block No. 12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003.
... Respondents
OA 1362/2020
Mannu Rani, Age 27 Years
Sub: Participation of Typing Test, Group C
D/o Karan Singh.
R/o House No. 461/27, West Ram Nagar,
Pathar Wali Gali,
Near Yoganand Modern School,
Sonepat, Haryana-131001.
... Applicant
4 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
Vs.
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
SSC, Block No. 12,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi- 110003
2. The Regional Director (NR)
Govt. of India,
Department of Personnel & Training
Staff Selection Commission
Block No. 12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003.
... Respondents
OA 2090/2020
1. Saloni Bansal, Appointment (Group 'C)
Aged About 26 Years,
D/o Sh. Naresh Bansal,
R/o Kd 36 B Ashok Vihar phase 1,
New Delhi-110052
2. Raj Shekhar, Appointment (Group C')
Aged About 27 Years,
S/O Sh. Ram Jee Prasad,
R/O Holding No. 13/80, ward no. 20,
Turha Toli,
Buxar, Bihar-802101
3. Saurabh Kumar Yadav, Appointment
(Group 'C')
Aged About 27 Years,
S/O Sh. Jitendra Kumar Yadav,
R/O Village-Mahursa(Kalwari), Post-
Makhdumpur,
Tehsil-Saidpur
District-Ghazipur, pincode-233307,
Uttar Pradesh
4. Kapil Vashist, Appointment (Group 'C')
5 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
Aged About 28 Years,
S/O Sh. Satish Kumar,
R/O House No.203/1, VPO-Tilpat
Dist.-Faridabad,
Haryana-121003
5. Pushpankar Narayan, Appointment (Group 'C')
Aged About 22 Years,
S/O Sh. Sanjay Kumar,
R/O Village-Pachrukhi, P.O.-Chiraili,
Dist.- Gaya
Bihar-824233
6. Jaidev, Appointment (Group 'C')
Aged About 27 Years,
S/O Sh. Rajender,
R/O vpo-karoliDist-Rewari, Haryana-1233003
7. Tarun, Appointment (Group 'C)
R/O, Vpo-Kharainti, Tehsil.-Meham,
Dist.-Rohtak
Aged About 26 Years,
S/O Sh. Ramesh Gill,
Haryana-124514
8. Padala Rajkumar Yadav, Appointment
(Group 'C)
Aged About 24 Years,
S/O Sh. Padala Srinivasa Rao,
R/O 3-465/1, Polakampadu, Tadepalli
Mandal, Dist-Guntur,
Andhra Pradesh-522501
9. Jadeja Shurvirsinh Mahendrasinh,
Appointment (Group 'C)
Aged About 26 Years,
S/O Sh. Jadeja Mahendrasinh Abhesinh,
post-Saurashtra
R/O VejagamVajdi, Vaya Raiya,
post-Saurashtra
University, Rajkot,
Gujarat pin-360005
6 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
10. Savita Rana, Appointment (Group C)
Aged About 25 Years,
R/O House no.2896, near jali factory,
Patel Nagar,
D/O Sh. Jai Prakash,
Sonipat, Haryana-131001
11. Barrenkala Venkata Desic, Appointment
(Group „C‟)
Aged About 24 Years,
S/O Sh. BarrenkalaGiridhar
R/O 28/31-3, Rameswaram, Proddatur,
Dist. Kadapa
Andhra Pradesh-516360
12. GarimaRahi, Appointment (Group 'C')
Aged About 27 Years,
D/O Sh.Rakesh Rahi,
R/O house no.-61, pocket 14, sector 24,
Rohini
New delhi-110085
13. GyanRanjanPrakash, Appointment (Group 'C)
Aged About 28 Years,
S/O Sh. Ram Singh
R/O VPO-Obra, Azad Mohalla, Dist.-
Aurangabad
Bihar-824124
14. Shashi Kumar, Appointment (Group C)
Aged About 24 Years,
S/O Sh. Niranjan Singh,
R/O VPO-South ekauna, Dist.-Bhojpur
Bihar-802210
15. Suneel Kumar Garg, Appointment (Group 'C)
Aged About 26 Years,
R/O Meena Colony, Gangapur city, Dist.
S/O Sh. K.C. Agrawal, Gangapuur city Dist.
Sawaimadhopur,
Rajasthan-322201
16. Preeti, Appointment (Group C)
7 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
Aged About29Years,
R/O House No. 13/685, Gobind Nagar, Hisar
Road,
D/O Sh. Rajbir Singh,
Sirsa, Haryana-125055
17. Yadvendra Singh Gurjar, Appointment
(Group C)
Aged About 29 Years,
S/O Sh. Ranveer Singh,
R/O Gram-Jalalgarh, Teshil-Sabalgarh,
Morena,
M.P.-476229
18. Vinod Kumar Meena, Appointment (Group 'C)
Aged About 22 Years,
S/O Sh. BabuLalMeena
R/O village-MallakiDhanivpo-Labana, Teh-
Amerdist-Jaipur
Rajasthan-303002
19. Rahul, Appointment (Group 'C)
Aged About 25 Years,
S/O Sh. Krishan Kumar
R/O vpo-Khandewla, Teh-Farrukhnagar,
dist-Gurugramn
Haryana-122504
20. Kirandeep Kumar, Appointment (Group C')
Aged About 22 Years,
S/O Sh. Rajesh Mahto,
R/O Village-SemariDumaripo/ps-Gaunaha
dist.
West Champaran, Bihar-845102
21. Pritam Kumar, Appointment (Group 'C')
Aged About 24 Years,
21. R/O Village-Devariya, post-Bhitti,
dist.-Kaimur
S/O Sh. Dinanath Singh,
Bihar-821109
22. Prashant Parimal, Appointment (Group 'C)
8 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
Aged About 26 Years,
S/O Sh. Ramanand singh,
R/O Lohiyanagar, ward no.28,
ChitraguptaMandir, dist.-Begusarai
Bihar-851218
23. Rakesh Kumar Kuldeep, Appointment
(Group 'C)
Aged About 27 Years,
S/O Sh. Badri Prasad Kuldeep,
R/O VPO-Hanutpurateh.-Shahpura dist.-
Jaipur
Rajasthan-303601
24. Shubham Madaan, Appointment (Group 'C')
Aged About 29 Years,
S/O Sh. Raj Kumar Madaan,
R/O 3/116, first floor, front side,
Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi-110027
25. Prem Chand Meena, Appointment (Group 'C')
Aged About 25 Years,
S/O Sh. PrabhuDayalMeena,
R/O type-4, flat no.4, Delhi Jal Board, Rithala
Rohini, Delhi-110085
26. Kurakula Rahul, Appointment (Group 'C')
Aged About 27 Years,
S/O Sh. K Ramakrishna,
R/O house no. 212, MIG-2, housing board
colony,dist.- Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh-
518501
27. Deepika, Appointment (Group 'C')
Aged About 23 Years,
D/O Sh. Ramesh,
R/O vpo-Anwali, teh-Gohana, dist.-sonipat
Haryana-131409.
28. Rahul Dhakad, Appointment (Group 'C)
Aged About 25 Years,
S/O Sh. IshwarLalDhakad,
9 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
R/O Station Road, bangrod, Ratlam,
Madhya Pradesh-457001
29. Komal Kumawat, Appointment (Group 'C)
Aged About 27 Years,
D/O Sh. RamnarayanKumawat,
R/O ward no.7, Shriramnagar, Phulera, Dist.-
Jaipur
Rajasthan-303338
30. Avdesh Kumar, Appointment (Group C')
Aged About 26 Years,
S/O Sh. ChhedaLal,
R/O vpo-Sundriteh-Nawabganj dist.-Bareilly
Uttar Pradesh-243406
31. Parichey Jonty Kaushik, Appointment
(Group 'C)
Aged About 25 Years,
S/O Jitender Kaushik,
R/O villa no.-1771, omaxe city, Sonipat,
Haryana-131001
32. Ashish Kumar Jha, Appointment (Group 'C')
Aged About 22 Years,
S/o Sh. AmarkantJha,
R/O village-Dagarua, p.o.-Musarigharari,
dist.-Samastipur
Bihar-848101
33. Kirti Kumari, Appointment (Group 'C')
Aged About 28 Years,
D/O Sh. Kuldeep Singh,
R/O house no.-227, Krishna colony, Tilpat,
Faridabad, Haryana-121003
34. Pallavi Chaudhary, Appointment (Group 'C)
Aged About 22 Years,
D/O Sh. Amarpal Singh,
R/O village-Hisampur, post-Kailbakri, dist.-
Amroha
Uttar Pradesh-244221
10 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
35. Vivek Gupta, Appointment (Group 'C') (1
Aged About 27 Years,
S/O Sh. Satpal Gupta,
R/O plot no.-20, Kang 1, Patiala bank colony,
dist.-
Kurukshetra, Haryana-136118
36. Ashish Kumar Meena, Appointment
(Group „C‟)
Aged About 27 Years,
S/O Sh. Harji Ram Meena,
R/O village-Ringaspura, post-Dahariya, The-
Nadoti, Dist.-Karauli, Rajasthan-322215
37. Shubham Sharma, Appointment (Group „C‟)
Aged About 28 Years,
S/O Ramswaroop Sharma
R/O-F28, Ram Nagar ext., Swej Farm, Sodala
Dist.-Jaipur, Rajasthan-302019
38. AssimUjjawal, Appointment (Group C)
Aged About 28 Years,
S/O Sh.KN Singh,
R/O vpo-RamgarhBhabua ,distt.- Kaimur,
Bihar-821110
39. Kashmir Sihag, Appointment (Group „C‟)
Aged About 26 Years,
S/O Suresh Sihag,
R/O Plot No.-32, Marudharnagar, Jaipur
road,
Bikaner
Rajasthan-334001
40. VikasYadav, Appointment (Group C‟)
Aged About 26 Years,
S/O Sh.RamswaroopYadav,
R/O house no. 362, village-Khatoti,
Sultanpur,
The.-Narnaul, Mahandergarh, Haryana-
123001
41. Monika Yadav, Appointment (Group „C‟)
11 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
Aged About 27 Years,
D/O Sh. Harish Yadav,
R/O House No. 619, Shanti colony, civil lines,
PrabhukaAdda dist.-Etawah
Uttar Pradesh-206001
42. Amit Kumar, Appointment (Group „C)
Aged About 28 Years,
R/O House No.1745/31, Gali no.-3, Shastari
S/O Sh. Pratap Singh,
colony, gohana road, Sonipat
Haryana-131001
43. Naveen Kumar, Appointment (Group‟C)
Aged About 25 Years,
R/O H.No.plot no.-16, Jagdambavihar,
kundaamer,
S/O Sh. Nihal Singh Yadav,
Jaipur
Rajasthan-302028
44. Harish Kumar Singh, Appointment (Group „C‟)
Aged About 44 Years,
S/O Bhoop Narayan Singh,
R/O 33 B-N block, gopalnagar ext.
Najafgarh, South west ,Delhi, pin-110043
45. Anubhav Sharma, Appointment (Group C)
Aged About 25 Years,
S/O Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma,
R/O- 827, Avas Vikas Colony, Virbhadra
road,
Rishikesh, Distt.-Dehradun
Uttarakhand-2492001
46. Sanjay Kumar Meena, Appointment (Group C‟)
Aged About 25 Years,
S/O Sh. RamhetLalMeena,
R/O village-Thekrin, post-Ballupura, The.-
Rajgarh
Dist.-Alwar Rajasthan-301408
47. Sanjay Kumar , Appointment (Group „C‟)
12 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
Aged About 28 Years,
S/O Sh. Manoj Kumar Sahu,
R/O At.-Gothai PO-Bagra More Dist.-Chatra,
Jharkhand-825103
48. Anil, Appointment (Group „C‟)
Aged About 27 Years,
S/o Sh. Ramesh
R/o House No. 64, Raipur Khurd,
Chandigarh-160102
49.Jyoti, Appointment(Group C)
Aged about 27 Years
D/o Sh. Umed Singh
R/o House No. 1943, Sector-1
Rohtak Haryana-124001
... Applicants
Vs.
1. Union on India
Through Secretary
DoP&T
North Block, New Delhi
2. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
CGO Complex, Lodhi Raod,
New Delhi
3. The Regional Director,
Staff Selection Commission,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
OA 3516/2017
Dev Mohan
S/o Sh. Shyam Sunder Mohan
R/o F-272, A/1, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi-110092
Aged about 25 years
(Group C)
13 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
(Candidates toward CGLE-2016)
... Applicant
Vs.
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &
Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman (Head Quarter)
Block No. 12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
... Respondents
OA 2371/2021
Akash Antal
S/o Sh. Mahipal Singh
R/o E-2, Type II
New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp,
New Delhi-110009
Aged about 26 years
(Group C)
(Candidates toward CHSL-2019)
... Applicant
Vs.
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &
Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman (Head Quarter)
Block No. 12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road,
14 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
New Delhi- 110003
3. Staff Selection Commission (Northern Region)
Through its Regional Director,
Block No. 12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
... Respondents
OA 973/2021
1. Deepak Kaushik
S/o. Sh. Richpal Kaushik
R/o H.No. 1091, Bhagat Singh Colony.
Ballabgarh, Faridabad-121004
Aged about 28 years
2. Akshay Sharma
S/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma
R/o Plot No. 62, Street No. 1, Ajit Nagar,
Bhattian, Ludhiana, (Punjab)- 141008
Aged about 27 years
3. Vikash Kumar
S/o Arjun Shaw
R/o AT-Bodhu Bhawan,
Near Natraj Cinema, New Area,
Nawada, Bihar-805110
Aged about 27 years
4. Vijay Kumar
S/o Sh. Sita Ram
R/o Dhani- Badapana,
VPO-Patwari, KA Bass,
Dist. Sikar, Raj- 332715
Aged about 26 years
5. Vikas Kumar
S/o Sh. Haridev
R/o VPO-Gundiana, Dist- Yamuna Nagar,
15 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
Teh-Dadar- 133103, Haryana.
Aged about 29 years
6. Sahukari Kiran Kumar
S/o Sh.S. Vallabha Rao
R/o 1-226, Post Street, Boddapadu (VilVPost),
Palasa, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, 532222
Aged about 26 years
7. Amarjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh
R/o GarhiBisanPur, Ward No-9,
Post- Kiul R.S, Lakhisarai, Bihar- 811310
Aged about 29 years
8. Sonu Kumar Barnwal
S/o Sh. Shivandan Barnwal
R/o Vil- Manikpur, PO- Madhopur,
PS- Jasidin, Dist- Deoghar,
Jharkhand, Pin- 814142
Aged about 25 years
9. Riyan Das
S/o Sh. Goutam Kr Das
R/o A/10, Brahmapura South
P.O Brahmapura, Kolkata- 700096
Aged about 27 years
10. Dilip Sharma
S/o Sh Jawahar Lal Sharma
R/o VilI- Gobra Netaji Nagar
P.O. Chanditala, Dist- Hooghly,
West Bengal- 712702
Aged about 32 years
11. Arvind Kumar Meena
S/o Sh. Ram Prasad Meena
16 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
R/o Plot No. 29, Near Defence School,
Meena Colony, Sawai Madhopur, 322001
Aged about 25 years
12. Jagbir Singh
S/o Sh. Ramdhari
R/o V.P.O-Kurar, Teh- Bapoli,
Dist- Panipat, State- Haryana, Pin- 132103
Aged about 26 years
13. Ramphool Meena
S/o Sh. Badri Narain
R/o VPO-Dangarwara, Vaya- Andhi, Teh
Jamwaramgarh, Dist- Jaipur (Raj-303001)
Aged about 33 years
14. Nitendra Rawat
S/o Sh. Jawahar Singh Rawat
R/o Ward No. 3, Kalyanpur,
Vikashagar, Dehradun (Uttarakhand)-
248198
Aged about 26 years
15. Rajababu
S/o Sh. Nawab Singh
Ro Vil Rampur, Post- Kasimpur,
Dist Aligarh (UP)
Aged about 26 years
16. Pranav Tripathi
S/o Sh. Gajendra Pratap Tripathi
R/o 56, New Colony, Achalpur,
Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh (230001)
Aged about 27 years
17. Gaurav Yadav
S/o Sh. Virendra Singh Yadav
17 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
R/o 29, Daya Nagar, 60 Feet Road,
Alwar (Rajasthan) - 301001
Aged about 40 years
18. Rakesh Kumar Bairwa
S/o Sh. Kailash Chand Bairwa
R/o Village- jankiBalampura, Tehsil-
Chaksh, Post
Shivdaspura, Pincode- 303901
Aged about 26 years
... Applicants
Vs.
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel of Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Pensions & Public
Grievance
South Block, New Delhi
2. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman (Headquarters),
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
3. Staff Selection Commission (Northern
Region)
Through its Regional Director,
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
4. Staff Selection Commission (Southern
Region)
Through its Regional Director
2nd Floo, EVK Sampath Builiding,
DPI Campus, College Rd, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu-600006
5. Staff Selection Commission (Central Region)
Through its Regional Director
21-23, Lowther Road, Allahabad,
18 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
Uttar Pradesh- 211002.
6. Staff Selection Commission (Eastern Region)
Through its Regional Director
1st MSO Building (8th Floor),
234/4, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose
Road,
Kolkata-700020.
...Respondents
OA 2040/2022
Mohit
S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar
R/o Village-Turkpur,
P/o Mandaura,
District-Sonipat,
Haryana-131103
Aged about 25 years
(Group C)
(Candidate toward CGLE-2020)
...Applicant
VS.
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &
Pension,
North Block, New Delhi-110001
2. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman (Head Quarter)
Block No. 12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi- 110003
3. Staff Selection Commission (Northern Region)
Through its Regional Director,
Block No. 12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road,
19 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
New Delhi- 110003.
... Respondents
OA 1927/2020
1. Ankit
S/o Sh.Azad Singh
R/o H.No.842/23, Heera Nagar,
Gurugram, Haryana-122001.
Aged about 26 years
2. Shalu Swami
D/o Sh. Anil Kumar
R/o H.No. 245, Vill-Chitana,
Post-Mahara, Sonipat,
Haryana-131024.
Aged about 26 years
(Group „C‟)
(Candidates towards Multi Tasking (Non-Technical)
Staff Exam-2019)
... Applicants
VS.
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &
Pension,
North Block,
New Delhi-110001
2. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman (Head Quarter)
Block No. 12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
3. Staff Selection Commission (Northern Region)
Through its Regional Director,
Block No. 12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003.
.... Respondents
OA 3929/2017
20 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
Order reserved on: 20.12.2022
Order pronounced on: 11.01.2023
1. Abhimanyu Singh Tanwar
S/o Sh. Ripudaman Singh
R/o 121, Phase-I, Chetan Enclave,
Jaipur Road, Alwar, Rajasthan
Aged about 26 years
2. Ashok Meena
S/o Sh. Punia Ram Meena
R/o A-16, Green Park Colony,
Opposite Malviya Nagar,
Alwar, Rajasthan
Aged about 27 years
(Group C)
(Candidates toward CGLE-2016)
...Applicants
Vs.
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &
Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman (Head Quarter)
Block No. 12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110504
... Respondents
Advocate for applicants:
Mr. Ajesh Luthra in OA No.4005/2017, 973/2021,
2040/2022, 3516/2017, 946/2020, 2371/2021,
3929/2017, 1927/2020
Mr Nishant Rai Nama for Mr Sachin Chauhan in OA No.
1362/2020,
Mr D S Mahendru in OA No. 2090/2020
Advocate for respondents:
21 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
Ms. Sumedha Sharma in OA No. 4005/2017,
Mr. Ranjan Tyagi in OA No. 1362/2020, 2090/2017,
3516/2017,
Mr R K Sharma in OA No. 2090/2020,
Mr Sanjeev Yadav in OA No. 2371/2021, 946/2020
Mr G S Virk in OA No. 973/2021,
Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan in OA No. 2040/2022
Mr. Tushar Malik for Mr. Subhash Gosain in OA
3929/2017.
Ms. Neha Bairagee in OA No.1927/2020.
ORDER
By Hon'ble Manish Garg, Member (J) The moot point involved in all the aforesaid OAs are the same, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel(s) for the respective parties, these were heard together and we are deciding all these cases by a common judgment. For the purpose of adjudication of the core issue, we are taking up OA No.973/2021 as lead case with the consent of the learned counsel(s) for the respective parties. Written submissions have also been filed by the respective parties.
2. In all the aforesaid Original Applications, the applicants are aggrieved by rejection of their candidature for CGLE 2018/Multi Tasking (Non-Technical) Staff, 2019, for respective post(s) on the ground that they failed to put their signatures on the answer book for Tier -II (Non- Technical) (Computer based) examination and CGLE 2018 candidates in Tier III (Descriptive) examination 22 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch even though they have put their thumb impression. Therefore, answer sheets of some of the applicants have been evaluated and others have not been evaluated.
3. There are another set of applicants whose answer sheets have been evaluated and were declared qualified in Tier III (Descriptive Paper) but their candidatures have been rejected in terms of para 10 of Impugned Communication dated 01.04.2021 (in OA No.973/2021) inter alia holding as under:-
"10. Candidature of the following forty eight (48) candidates who were declared qualified in Tier-III (Descriptive Paper), have now been rejected in the final result on account of „Without Signature‟/ „Without LTI‟ / Incorrect Roll Number in their Answer Books of Tier-III, in strict compliance of the mandatory instructions. The Roll Numbers of these candidates are given below:
1402500029 1601002856 2002023703 2002024285 2201003791 2201020408 2201029614 2201038498 2201044134 2201084605 2201123469 2201147907 2201149204 2201154495 2201177520 2201203707 2201285605 2201318955 2201330394 2201335063 2201354222 2201369133 2201391971 2401002593 2402015194 2405029785 2405089396 2405093436 2405101169 2405106941 2406009607 3009004926 3010000140 3010301217 3013311721 3205605230 3206321789 3206815266 4205050555 4410018933 6001201898 6006204094 6007202203 8001002515 8007003557 8601067104 8601078186 9211000058
11. Result of eight candidates bearing Roll numbers 220115113, 2201167451, 2201356143, 2201413501, 2201415112, 2402009006, 2411005235 and 7001719272 has been kept withheld on account of suspected malpractices.
In addition, result of one candidate bearing Roil No. 1601003341 has been kept withheld due to pending Court case."
23 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
4. At the admission stage, this Tribunal has granted interim relief vide record of proceedings dated 07.05.2021 in OA NO.973/2021 inter alia to the effect that "any appointment pursuant to the impugned notification dated 01.04.2021 shall be subject to the outcome of the present OA". It is noticed that in all other cases also, the stay has been granted by this Tribunal except in OA No. 1927/2020. For the sake of convenience and brevity the tabulated chart of the pending OAs and their status thereto depicts hereunder:
S.No. OA No. & Status of Interim Category Number of evaluation order applicants
1. 4005/2017 and Tier-III exam interim No 5 applicants not granted on signatures evaluated 16.11.2017 in Tier-III examination
2. 3516/2017 and one Exam Interim No applicant evaluated granted on signatures 06.10.2017 in Tier-III exam
3. 3929/2017 and 2 Evaluated Interim was No applicants granted on signatures 10.11.2017 in Tier-III exam
4. 946/2020 and one Tier-II exam Interim No applicant not granted on signatures evaluated 05.11.2020 in Tier-II exam
5. 1362/2020 and one Not Interim No applicant evaluated granted on signatures 09.11.2020 in Tier-III exam
6. 2090/2020 and 49 Not Interim No applicants evaluated granted on signatures 26.02.2021 in Tier-III exam
7. 1927/2020 and 2 Not No interim No applicants evaluated was granted signatures in Tier-II exam
8. 973/2020 and 18 Evaluated Interim No applicants granted on signatures 07.05.2021 in Tier-III exam 24 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
9. 2371/2021 and one Not Interim No applicant evaluated granted on signatures 29.10.2021 in Tier-II exam
10. 2040/2022 and one Not Interim No applicant evaluated granted on signatures 03.08.2022 in Tier-III exam
5. In OA No. 973/2021, there are 18 applicants, who are seeking following relief(s):
"a) Quash and set aside the impugned para 10 of result notice dated 01.04.2021 (Annexure A/1) to the extent it relates to the applicants and
b) Direct the respondents to forthwith further consider and appoint the applicants in accordance with the service preferences submitted by them and their respective merit position.
c) Accord all consequential benefit including monetary and seniority benefits.
d) Award costs of the proceedings and
e) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon‟ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicants."
6. The sum and substance of all these cases is failure on the part of applicants/ candidates to put signatures on answer sheets/ booklets either in Tier II or Tier III examination conducted by Staff Selection Commission (In Short "SSC). However, the applicants have put thumb impression in answer booklets.
7. Brief Facts:
25 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
7.1 On perusal of the records of the case, it would reveal that it is not a matter of dispute that for Non Technical posts, there was three Tier pattern of examination i.e.
(i) Tier I- Computer Based Examination
(ii) Tier II- ( Descriptive) ( English)
(iii) followed by document verification process (DV) ( if found on merit list) 7.2 Clause 14.8 and 14.9 of the admission notification prescribed as under:-
"14.8 In addition to the Admission Certificate, it is mandatory to carry at least two passport size recent colour photographs, Original valid Photo-ID proof such as:
14.8.1 Aadhaar Card/ Printout of E-Aadhaar, 14.8.2 Voter's ID Card, 14.8.3 Driving License, 14.8.4 PAN Card, 14.8.5 Passport, 14.8.6 School/ College ID Card, 14.8.7 Employer ID Card (Govt./ PSU/ Private), etc. 14.9 PwD candidates availing the facility of scribes as per paras 8.2 and 8.4 shall also be required to carry required Medical Certificate/Undertaking/ Photocopy of the Scribe's Photo ID Proof, as specified therein. Candidates without above noted documents will not be allowed to appear in the examination."
7.3 Following Clauses are also relevant for adjudication of the case, which are reproduced as under: 26 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
"17.14 Success in the examination confers no right of appointment unless Government is satisfied after such enquiry as may be considered necessary that the candidate is suitable in all respects for appointment to the service/ post.
17.15 The candidates applying for the examination should ensure that they fulfill all the eligibility conditions for admission to the examination. Their admission at all stages of the examination will be purely provisional, subject to their satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions. If, on verification, at any time before or after the written examination, it is found that they do not fulfill any of the eligibility conditions, their candidature for the examination will be cancelled.
xxx xxx xxx
19. Action against candidates found guilty of misconduct: If candidates are found to indulge at any stage in any of the malpractices listed below during the conduct of examination or thereafter, their candidature for this examination will be cancelled and they will be debarred from the examinations of the Commission for the period mentioned below:
xxx xxx xxx
20. Commission's Decision Final: The decision of the Commission in all matters relating to eligibility, acceptance or rejection of the applications, penalty for false information, mode of selection, conduct of examination(s), allotment of examination centres and preparation of merit list & force allocation, debarment for indulging in malpractices will be final and binding on the candidates and no enquiry/correspondence will be entertained in this regard.
xxx xxx xxx
23. Important Instructions To Candidates:
a) BEFORE APPLYING, CANDIDATES ARE ADVISED TO GO THROUGH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN IN THE NOTICE OF EXAMINATION VERY CAREFULLY.
(b)THE CANDIDATE MUST WRITE HIS NAME AND DATE OF BIRTH STRICTLY AS RECORDED IN THE MATRICULATION/ SECONDARY CERTIFICATE. IF ANY VARIATION IN THE NAME AND DATE OF BIRTH IS OBSERVED AT THE TIME OF DOCUMENT VERIFICATION, HIS/ HER CANDIDATURE WILL BE CANCELLED.27 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
(c) CANDIDATES ARE ADVISED IN THEIR OWN INTEREST TO SUBMIT ONLINE APPLICATIONS MUCH BEFORE THE CLOSING DATE AND NOT TO WAIT TILL THE LAST DATE TO AVOID THE POSSIBILITY OF DISCONNECTION// INABILITY OR FAILURE TO LOGIN TO THE SSC/WEBSITE ON ACCOUNT OF HEAVY LOAD ON THE WEBSITE DURING THE CLOSING DAYS.
(d) The Commission will not undertake detailed scrutiny of applications for the eligibility and other aspects at the time of written examination and, therefore, candidature will be accepted only provisionally. The candidates are advised to go through the requirements of educational qualification age, etc. and satisfy themselves that they are eligible for the post(s). Copies of supporting documents will be sought at the time of Document Verification. When scrutiny is undertaken, if any claim made in the application is not found substantiated and/ or the candidate is found ineligible, the candidature will be cancelled and the Commission's decision shall be final.
xxx xxx xxx
(k) Applications with blurred/ illegible Photograph/ Signature will be rejected summarily.
xxx xxx xxx
(n) The candidates must carry two passport size recent colour photographs and a latest photo bearing identification proof such as Aadhaar Card/printout of E-Aadhaar, Driving License, Voter Card, PAN Card, Identity Card issued by University/ College/ Government or any other office where the candidate may be working, etc in original to the Examination Venue, failing which they will not be allowed to appear for the same. PwD candidates availing the facility of scribes as per paras 8.2 and 8.4 shall also be required to carry required Medical Certificate/ Undertaking/ Photocopy of the Scribe's Photo ID Proof, as specified therein."
8. The learned counsel for applicants in support of their case have submitted that they are entitled to relief(s) on following points:-
8.1 It is submitted that cancellation of their candidature vide impugned para 10 of result notice dated 01.04.2021 28 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch is illegal. No individual error has also been spelled out.
Besides, the error if any committed by applicants while filling up particulars on the opening sheet of their respective answersheet(s) is unintentional and inadvertent, due to examination related stress and hurry. The error is non-essential and the SSC itself has ignored the same and evaluated the answer-sheet. 8.2 Even if the applicants have defaulted, SSC has still evaluated the answerbook. This shows that there is no impediment in identification or evaluation of answerbook in the event a candidate erroneously omits to sign or put his left thumb impression or does not correctly mention his roll number. Not only such answerbooks have been evaluated, but marks have also been announced. Based on marks obtained in Tier-II, the final score of applicants has also been declared alongwith others. The merit of applicants has been thus arrived at and determined by SSC. Pursuant to merit so determined and announced, the applicants have been subjected to all next stages of selection process including Computer Proficiency Test and Data Entry Skill Test and upon qualifying therein, document verification of applicants has also been conducted along with others and they have been allowed to submit their service preference also. Thus, the 29 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch instructions contained on the answerbook envisaging award of zero marks and cancellation of candidature in the event of omission to follow the same are no more applicable at this belated stage. The said instructions do not require any compliance, at this belated stage. 8.3 During the Tier III stage examination, candidates are required to append their signatures and left thumb impressions at three places - (i) Attendance sheet (ii) Declaration form and (iii) the opening sheet of answerbook. All this is done in the presence of invigilators. In an event, a candidate omits to either sign on the opening sheet of his answerbook, his Left Thumb impression is still thereon the opening sheet, apart from his signatures as well as LTI on the undertaking form and the attendance sheet. Similarly, if a candidate omits to put his left thumb impression on the opening sheet, his signatures are still there on the opening sheet and additionally on the undertaking form and also the attendance sheet alongwith his Left Thumb Impressions. Thus, the omission of signature or LTI (as the case may be) is not fatal. It is relevant to note that affixation of left thumb impression even in the absence of signatures, is a valid and legal mode of execution of a document as held by Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Suchitra 30 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch Karati vs. Sumitra Das, FMA No.99/1998 dated 25.02.2009.
8.4 In Kritika Raj Dabas vs. State Selection Commission, OA No.1413/2015 dated 07.12.2015, this Tribunal granted relief to the candidate who had committed an error in mentioning her roll number. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court affirmed the Order of this Tribunal vide judgment dated 19.05.2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4519/2016. SLP too was dismissed. The said order was passed by keeping in view that the answerbook had been evaluated by SSC itself, despite its instructions to the contrary.
8.5 It is further relevant to point out that SSC has rejected 4560 candidatures towards the instant selection process on the ground of candidates adopting 'unfair means' or to say candidates revealing identity in the answerbook, which too is violation of the exam-related instructions of SSC. However subsequently, SSC revisited and recalled its earlier decision of rejection of candidatures and vide notice dated 05.08.2020 (Annexure A16) allowed all such candidates to participate further in the instant ongoing selection process. It is submitted that dual standard policy of SSC cannot be countenanced in law.
31 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch8.6 On identical issues, OA No. 263/2017 titled Avinash Chandra Singh & Ors. vs. Staff Selection Commission, this Tribunal had restrained the respondents from issuing any appointment letter vide interim order dated 23.01.2017 and thereafter allowed the OA vide orders dated 21.02.2017. The aforesaid judgment has been upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CWP No. 6086/2017 decided on 29.08.2017 and later, SLP filed by SSC has been dismissed on 22.11.2019.
9. The applicants pray for condonation of the minor error inadvertently committed by them. The applicants are unemployed and recently completed their studies. They have done fairly well in this highly Competitive Selection process. They have proved their merit. They pray that they may not be excluded from selection and denied appointment merely on hyper technical grounds.
10. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Kolkata in Suchitra Karati (supra), the relevant part of the order reads as under:
"Before concluding, this Court also feels that another aspect is required to be considered in the facts of the instant case. This is a case where creation of a document by misrepresentation is not alleged. As such, under what circumstances those documents were created is not a material consideration here. Here the Court is required to find out as to whether those disputed deeds were executed by Jugal babu or not.32 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
Execution of a document can be made in various modes. A document may be executed by the executants by putting his signature on such document. A document may be executed by the executants by putting his left thumb impression therein. Both the aforesaid modes of execution are valid and accepted. Normally, it is not expected from a literate person to execute a document by putting his left thumb impression. But the departure from this rule cannot vitiate a document, if it is found that the executant executed the disputed document even by putting his left thumb impression therein."
11. Applicants have further relied on the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 2063/2012 dated 13.02.2013. Relevant part of the order reads as under:
"26. The applicant himself committed a mistake by not coding his Ticket number correctly on his OMR Answer Sheet cannot throw blame on the Invigilator by stating that it is for the Invigilator to verify whether all the particulars have been filled properly or not before affixing his signature on the OMR Answer Sheet.
27. However, as the applicants OMR Answer Sheet for Paper-1 of Tier-II examination has already been evaluated by the OMR machine, and awarded 129 marks to him for the said paper, and as per the marks announced by the respondents vide Annexure A5 and Annexure A6, the applicant is eligible to be placed in the merit list for the post of Inspector (Central Excise) against the vacancy of Inspector (Central Excise) which was directed to be kept vacant by this Tribunal and as held by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in Neeraj Kumar‟s case (supra), that the instructions regarding filling up of the OMR Answer Sheets, in the absence of allegations of any mal-practices, are merely directory and not mandatory and in view of the observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sandeep Kumar‟s case (supra) that the approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people, we are of the considered opinion that the OA deserves to be allowed.
28. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Inspector (Central Excise) or to any other post, as per his merit, after taking into the marks awarded to the applicant for Paper-1 of Tier-II examination as per Annexure A5 coupled with the marks awarded to him under Annexure 33 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch A6, if otherwise eligible, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
29. However, it is made clear that the applicant will get all his benefits such as salary, seniority, etc. prospectively, i.e., from the date of appointment only."
12. Applicants have further relied on decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1802/2012 dated 30.10.2013 titled Ajay Kumar Kajla vs. Union of India. Relevant part of the order reads as under:
"12. We, therefore, direct the respondents to evaluate Part II of answer sheet of the applicant, accord marks and declare it. If the applicant scores above the cut off marks, he should be invited for PET/Medical Test/interview and if he qualifies in them, appointed as IO in NCB. This exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this order."
13. Applicants have further relied on decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1413/2015 dated 07.12.2015 titled Ms. Kritika Raj vs. Staff Selection Commission. Relevant part of the order reads as under:
"20. From the aforesaid legal back ground, it is clear that applications or candidatures or selections normally shall not be rejected by the authorities, if any minor mistakes made by the youngsters in the competitive examinations, if otherwise establishes the identification of the person concerned, who applied for the post under consideration, in response to the relevant advertisement.
21. In view of the above legal position and in view of the fact that one post of Assistant in CSS was kept unfilled by virtue of the Interim Orders of this Tribunal and the appearance of the applicant before the Central Excise authorities was also made subject to outcome of this OA, and as she has written her name correctly on the 34 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch relevant paper-Module 3, which was also evaluated and awarded marks 86 out of 100, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to allot the post of Assistant in CSS to the applicant.
22. In the circumstances and in view of the above discussion, the OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to allot the post of Assistant in CSS to the applicant, if she is otherwise eligible, and the consequential orders for her appointment shall be issued, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."
14. Applicants have also relied on decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in WPC No.6086/2017 dated 29.08.2017 titled Union of India and another vs. Avinash Chandra Singh and others. Relevant part of the order reads as under:
"10. In the case of the said two respondents, there is slight distinction inasmuch, as, the said candidates had mentioned the ticket number incorrectly in the answer book as taken note of hereinabove. We have already noticed that the said ticket number is of no relevance to the process of evaluation of the answer script and it also has no bearing for the purpose of identifying the answer with the particular candidate. In fact, the opening sheet of the answer book of respondent No. 13 shows that the mistake in the writing of the ticket number by respondent No. 13 was corrected by the personnel of the petitioner itself. This shows that the petitioner was well aware of the correct ticket number which should have been filled in the opening sheet. Despite this being the position, the petitioner did not evaluate the answer scripts of respondent Nos. 13 and 62, which, in our view, is wholly unjustified. The wrong mention of the ticket number in the opening sheet of the answer book is as inconsequential, if not more, as the failure of the some of the candidates in not tick-marking the medium in which the answer scripts was answered.
11. We are, thus, of the view-for the reasons contained in our decision dated 10.08.2017 rendered in Writ Petition (C) No. 4829/2017, titled, "Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sumit Kumar" and WP(C) No. 5948/2017, titled, "Union of India & Ors. Vs. Nitish Kumar" that the decision of the Tribunal in the Original Application of 35 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch the respondent i.e. O.A. No. 263/2017 is unexceptionable, and does not call for interference."
15. Learned counsel for applicants have further relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Dy.No.(S)18743/2018 dated 22.11.2019 titled Union of India and others vs. Sumit Kumar. The judgment is reproduced below:
"Delay condoned.
The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly."
16. The learned counsel(s) for the respondents in respective Original Applications vehemently opposed for grant of relief(s) to the applicants. The bone of contention urged to deny the relief inter alia is as follows:-
16.1 All the applicants are candidates of CGLE-
2018, the Notice of which was published on the website of the SSC on 05.05.2018. It is a four tier examination. Applicants appeared in the Tier-III level of the CGLE 2018 on various examination centres even in various states. According to one of the mandatory instructions inscribed on the question paper-cum-answer book of Tier-III level of CGLE-2018 itself, the candidates were required to write their Roll number, put their signatures and left thumb 36 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch impression at the specified space on the first page of their question paper-cum-answer books. The instructions that were to be abided by the Candidates in Tier-III level of CGLE-2018, are as follows:-
"Question Paper-cum-Answer Books not bearing candidate's Roll No., Signature and Left-hand Thumb Impression, wherever requred will not be evaluated and/such candidates shall be awarded Zero 'marks."
16.2 These are mandatory instructions to ensure identity and authenticity of the authors of the Answer, Books of the candidates. However, the Applicant did not follow the Mandatory instructions and thus did not affix their signatures/ write correct Roll No. at the very first page of their Answer-Books either deliberately or due to their carelessness.
16.3 The very first page of the Question Paper-cum- Answer Book also carries the following mandatory instruction:
"Candidates are strictly advised not to write any personal identity (real or imaginary), e.g. Name, Roll No., Mobile No., Address etc. (other than the name and address given in the question) inside the Answer-Book. Otherwise their Answer-Book will not be evaluated and they shall be awarded zero marks."37 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
16.4 By indicating personal identity inside the Answer-Book, candidate makes his/her Answer Book identifiable at the time of evaluation and thus vulnerable to misuse. Candidates failing to adhere to this mandatory instruction are categorized under UFM' i.e. "Unfair Means and rejected by awarding zero marks.
16.5 The Commission stands by its position that as per the instructions on the Question-cum-Answer Books, the Petitioner ceased to have a right for evaluation of their Answer Books as they did not comply with the instructions of putting signature on their Answer Book. The mandatory instruction cannot be treated as directory, lest the entire selection would suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.
16.6 It may be mentioned here that these instructions are in vogue since long. It is submitted that Roll Number, Signature and Left and Left Thumb Impression are the most basic inputs required from the candidates on the Answer Books and the absence of any of them may lead to challenging the basic authenticity of the Answer Books written by the particular candidate. On the first page of the Question Paper-cum-Answer Books, two personal information are required to be written by the candidates in their own handwriting in addition to 38 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch their Left Hand Thumb Impression, namely, Roll No. and signature. In the absence of any of them, the very authentication of the Answer Book and its content may come under question. The candidates not writing their Roll Numbers, not putting their signatures and left-Hand Thumb impressions have been summarily rejected from the selection process of the Commission. There were 378 more candidates who were rejected on the same ground of violating aforesaid mandatory instructions inscribed on the first page of Question Paper-cum-Answer Books in Tier-III of CGIL Examination, 2018.
16.7 Mere merit of candidates cannot be taken as an excuse for covering up major mistakes like forgetting to put signatures on their Answer Books. It is pertinent to mention here that competitive Examination is not limited to take examination only rather it is a composite process which involves other formalities as well that eventually make an examination. Similarly, in the examination in question, Rules/instructions whether they are part of the Notice or inscribed on the Answer sheet, jointly form an examination process that demands serious observation of these rules/instructions on part of candidates and Commission's as well as. As such, these rules/instructions are also a part of the examination 39 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch process. If any candidate has not followed the instructions deliberately or is so careless that he/she even forgets to put signature on the Answer Book of the Examination, he/she has no right to be considered for selection, especially when he/she is selected through such competitive examinations to hold sensitive posts in the Government of India.
16.8 In order to maintain the sanctity of its examinations, the Commission enforces on the candidates strict adherence to the mandatory instructions issued for the Examinations. The rules, guidelines, instructions and provisions given in the Notice of the Examination and also on the Question Paper-cum-Answer Books are treated as sacrosanct and all candidates are required to scrupulously follow the guidelines. The Commission conducts its Examinations only within the framework of these rules, guidelines and instructions which are applicable uniformly to all candidates. If such mistakes, committed by the Applicant in contravention to the instructions/rule positions, are overlooked/condoned, the whole sanctity of the instructions and eventually of the Examination, would be lost and it would also be discriminatory to the candidates who followed these instructions meticulously. 40 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch 16.9 As regards the claim of the applicants that the Left Hand Thumb Impression (LTI) of the applicants affixed on the Answer Book as well as in the attendance sheet can be verified by the SSC, it may be mentioned that it is impractical for the Commission to get verification of candidates on the basis of thumb impression, at various intermediary stages of examinations. LTI of the Petitioner affixed on the Answer- book, cannot be verified by the Commission as this will require collection of samples of LTI as well as assigning the work to the Forensic Laboratories which are already overburdened with criminal investigations. It is further stated that the Commission conducts examinations for around 1.5 crore candidates every year and it is not possible for the Commission to adopt this route in a large number of cases wherever candidates failed to put their signature. The entire Schedule of its examinations and the recruitment thereafter would never be completed if such process were to be adopted by the Commission. Thus, it is impractical for the Commission to get verification of candidates on the basis of thumb impression, at various intermediary stages of examination.
17. Reliance is placed on following case laws: 41 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
i) I.A. No. 5-8 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8343-8344 OF 2011 -[Arising out of S.L.P (C) No.20152-20153 of 2010] Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. dated 28.9.2011 wherein it is held that the case of power of relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice.
ii) The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs G. Hemlatha & Anr., Civil Appeal No.6669 of 2019 wherein it is held that candidate for judicial post wherein, she complained that the Commission wrongfully invalidated her Law Paper-1. The High Court summoned the answer sheets and found that the Respondent had underlined the answer sheet with pencil at several places in Law Paper).
(iii) In the case of Dr. M. Vennila Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Writ Petition No.32383/2005 dated 12.06.2006, the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras was of the view that It is not in dispute that the applicants therein are highly qualified medical practitioners and after successful in their course, they registered their names in the Medical Council of India. 42 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
(iv) WP (C) no.427/2021 - Rashmi Kumari vs The Regional Director (NR) SSC decided on 18.1.2021 by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, it is held as under:
"3. It is the case of the petitioner that her paper-II answer sheet of the Multi Tasking (non- technical) Staff examination, 2019 has not been evaluated only on the ground that she has not signed the answer sheet though she has put her thumb impression on the same.
4. Mr. Bajaj who has taken instructions states that the case of the petitioner is not the solitary case. The answer sheets of approximately 700 candidates have not been evaluated on the same ground. According to him the instructions on the answer sheet clearly states that the candidates must the answer sheet, Dispute that if any candidate has not signed the answer sheet, the same is not evaluated. He further states that the next procedure is that of the verification of the documents to assess the eligibility of the candidates for said examination and that process has been initiated on January 04, 2021 and shall continue till January 22, 2021.
5. It is too late for the petitioner to approach this Court as according t him the results for the said examination were declared somewhere in the month of October, 2020."
18. The subject matter in all the Original Application(s) not only raises a interesting but also possess a larger issue of immense public interest/importance as to "Whether the genuineness of admitted card at the stage of Tier II/III of recruitment examination can be 43 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch doubted only because the candidate who has affixed his or her thumb impression on the same instead of signing it, in presence of invigilator, therefore, his or her candidature is liable to be rejected?"
19. Analysis:
19.1 In the present case, in OA Nos. 973/2021, 3929/2017, 3516/2017, the answers sheets have been evaluated and in all other OAs, the answer sheets have yet to be evaluated.
19.2 In above backdrop, with a view to address the question posed above, we would like to see what specialist in the field of Forensic Science had to say about Science of Finger Prints. „The Science of Fingerprint identification is an exact forensic science and does not admit of any mistake or doubt.‟ (S Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.) 19.3 In 1788 a German anatomist Johann Christoph Andreas Mayer was the first European to conclude that fingerprints were unique to each individual.44 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
19.4 In 1858 Sir William James Herschel initiated fingerprinting in India. In 1877 he first instituted the use of fingerprints on contracts and deeds to prevent the repudiation of signatures in Hooghly near Kolkata.
(William J Herschel (1916). The Origin of Finger-Printing. Oxford University Press). He registered government pensioners' fingerprints to prevent the collection of money by relatives after a pensioner's death. William James Herschel (November 25, 1880). "Skin furrows of the hand".
19.5 In 1880 Henry Faulds suggested, based on his studies, that fingerprints are unique to a human (Stan Z. Li (2009). Encyclopedia of Biometrics: I - Z Volume 2). 19.6 In Questioned Documents. Albert S. Osborn. Nelson-Hall Co., Chicago, III., 1929 Second Edition, founded as under :-
"Questioned document examination and finger print examination both are significant branches of forensic science. according to principle of handwriting science no two person can write same with similar writing characteristics and same person cannot write exactly same twice. Fingerprints are unique in nature as every individual has his/her fingerprint to provide its own identity. The finger contains a complicated structure of ridges with sweat glands at regular intervals. The patterns remain as such of any individual from birth to death and do 45 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch not change with growth except size.
Questioned document examination of disputed document is bases on the comparison and analysis of significant individual characteristics features identification in between questioned and standard handwriting content. The various cases related with fraud and forgery and falsification of documents has come in knowledge in daily life which affects everyone in society."
19.7 The State Of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad And Others, 1962 SCR (3) 10, the Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court had held that Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act empowers the court to, obtain specimen writing or signature and finger impressions of an accused person for purposes of Comparison. There was no infringement of Article 20(3) of the Constitution in compelling an accused person to give his specimen handwriting or signature, or impressions of his thumb, fingers, palm or foot to the investigating officer or under orders of a court for the purposes of comparison. Held, further, that the provisions of S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act did not offend Art. 20(3) unless compulsion was used in obtaining the information.
19.8 The reference is drawn to Kathi Kalu Oghad (supra) in present case to say that one cannot obivate from the fact that there is also IV Tier in examination 46 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch process i.e. the stage of document verification itself. In the event, the respondents have some doubt about any of the applicant(s) their being a prima facie or even iota of evidence so as to impersonation, cheating by any candidate, the said candidate can be given a chance to prove his or her innocence by asking for speciemen signature as well as finger prints for purpose of comparison. Subject to the said verification, the successful candidate can be issued offer of appointment after obtaining the expert opinion or finger print report. But without giving a reasonable opportunity by mere explanation by respondent(s) in rejecting his or her candidature(s) shall not be sufficient to pre-judging his or her character.
19.9 In terms of Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, whenever it is provided by the Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall record such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. Applying the said definitions of "proved" or "disproved" under Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act to the instructions for both applicant(s) and invigilator(s) , the Court shall presume that the same were done in accordance with same. It is trite in law that in the case of mandatory presumption, 47 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch the burden of proof on the respondents in such a case would not be as light.
19.10 As the presumption is raised under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely on the fact that the explanation offered by the respondents is reasonable. When there is a statutory presumption in favour of the applicant(s) as mode and manner in which the recruitment examination was conducted in presence of the invigilator appointed by the respondents who would have verified the credential of the such candidature while allowing to take exam and following the instructions during the said process, it has to be rebutted by proof and not by a bare explanation. Unless the explanation is supported by proof such as case of any incident of impersonation, cheating, possession of un- allowed material, mobile phone FIR or criminal action etc, the presumption created by the provision/executive instructions cannot said to be rebutted.
19.11 In a recent decision i.e. Civil Appeal No.5823/2011, Lachhmi Narain Singh (D) Through LRs & Ors. Versus Sarjug Singh (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. decided on 17.8.2021, while upholding the 48 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch genuineness of cancellation deed , the Hon‟ble Apex Court, observed as under :-
"18. The key characteristic of thumb impression is that every person has a unique thumb impression. Forgery of thumb impressions is nearly impossible. Therefore, adverse conclusion should not be drawn for affixing thumb impression instead of signing documents of property transaction. Therefore, genuineness of the Cancellation deed cannot be doubted only due to the fact that same was not signed and Rajendra as a literate person, affixed his thumb impression. This is more so in this case since the testator's thumb impression was proved to be genuine by the expert. "
20. The purpose of exam invigilation is to ensure that all candidates are under active surveillance for every moment of the duration of the examination. Invigilators should also try to provide a suitably pleasant and supportive atmosphere for candidates. However, they must also ensure and prevent any kind of communication between candidates (by copying, whispering or any kind of signal, exchange of paper or objects) and any kind of access to books, papers or electronic media of any kind (unless specifically authorized) for the exam duration. Invigilators also need to ensure the security of the examination hall before, during and after the examination. From the moment the question papers are given out until all answers are collected, exam invigilators should patrol vigilantly. Particular emphasis should be given to multiple-choice 49 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch and short-answer questions. The main goal should be to prevent possible candidate malpractice and administrative failures. Some of the other general duties may include:
a) Implementing the exam rules and regulations and remaining vigilant throughout the examination duration.
b) Assisting the candidates before, during and after the examination by directing them to their seats, advising them about possessions permitted at examination venues and dealing with queries raised by candidates etc.
c) Checking attendance during examinations, recording details of late arrivals and ensuring that proper seating plans are followed.
d) Escorting candidates during water breaks or washroom breaks as required and detecting any unauthorized materials inside the examination hall.
e) Delivering and collecting scripts carefully at the start and end of the examination in accordance with strict examination procedures.50 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
f) Assisting with the packing of examination scripts, stationery and other equipment from the examination venues.
g) Supervising candidates in leaving the examination venues in a quiet and disciplined manner and ensuring that candidates do not remove equipment or stationery from the examination venue without the permission of the authority.
h) After the examination is over, the exam invigilators should collect the scripts, question papers, stationery and other reference booklets from the candidates and check that all the required information (name, candidate number, venue, date etc.) have been filled out by the candidates on their scripts properly. When all the scripts are collected, invigilators should release candidates and direct them towards the exit of the examination hall in complete silence.
21. There are well defined instructions to invigilators, Overall Incharge, Observer-cum- Coordinator, Chief Invigilator, SSC team during their visit for any of the centre(s) by the respondents.
51 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
22. Any failure to carry out the above instructions on the part of invigilator, the respondents are also collectively and contributory liable for negligence. Therefore, it is not only administrative failure but also system failure for which the candidates cannot be blamed alone.
23. There is nothing on record to show that any disciplinary action has been taken against any of the invigilator for that matter against Overall Incharge, Observer-cum- Coordinator, Chief Invigilator, SSC team during their visit for any of the centre(s) for not following the instructions. Hence, presumption can be safely drawn that the examination was held in mode and manner prescribed under Instructions for examination without any incident of impersonation, cheating, possession of un- allowed material, mobile phone etc, more particularly in favour of the applicant(s). To the contrary, the booklet bears the signatures of the invigilator. Now, it cannot even lie the mouth of the respondents to contend or dispute the fact invigilator or Overall Incharge, Observer-cum- Coordinator, Chief Invigilator of Examination Center has not followed the above instructions.
52 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
24. The case laws relied upon the respondent‟s counsels cannot be applied to facts and circumstances of the present case in as much as in the said judgments the Hon‟ble Court were correct in applying law of following mandatory instructions at initial stage of examination. The Courts had not occasion to examine the role of the invigilators or Overall Incharge, Observer-cum- Coordinator, Chief Invigilator of Examination Center. The Courts had no occasion to deal with the situation to say the least what is sacrosanct to the candidates to follow instructions is equally applicable to the invigilators who have more and greater responsibility to hold examination in free and fair manner. The imposition of conditions cannot be loop sided. There is no sufficient evidence to establish against the applicants that they had used unfair means, impersonated and cheated in examination. There is no FIR or criminal action registered either till date. In present case, it is not even the case of the respondents that the applicant(s) have neither put signatures nor thumb impression.
25. The Rule of Fair play would demand that having allowed the candidates to get the evaluation the answer sheets at the II tier or III Tier Stage and/or to say the least, wherein, the invigilator has put his signatures after 53 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch verifying the credentials of candidate(s), it would not be incumbent upon the respondents to contend that the guidelines at each and every stage of selection has not been followed so as to create element of doubt unless and until there is strong suspicious doubt about the credibility of candidature. In the facts and circumstances of the present case in hand, failure to follow the instructions in not signing but put a thumb impression cannot be said to be too fatal to deny the applicants a chance to prove their innocence, more particularly in the light of the fact that thumb impression is more scientific and reliable than signature. No adverse inference can be drawn at this stage.
26. Conclusion:-
In view of the aforesaid discussion in detail, the impugned rejection order dated 01.04.2021, more particularly para 10, in OA No.973/2020 and the impugned order(s) of rejection of candidature in the respective OAs are quashed and set aside. All the OAs are allowed with the direction that the Competent Authority amongst respondent shall process the answer booklets and evaluate the same qua the applicants 54 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch wherever they have not evaluated either in Tier-II or III examination.
27. In the event, the applicants stand on the merits of the respective examination either in Mutli Tasking (Non- Technical) Staff, 2019, examination or CGLE-2018 examination, they shall be offered the offer of appointment as per the respective merits as per rules and instructions.
28. We direct the respondents to process the candidatures of the applicants in case they are ineligible for any other reasons. The answer sheets of the candidates who have not been evaluated shall be evaluated within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. In the event, the applicants are found eligible on merits list in Tier II (non-technical)/Tier III, then there cases shall be scrutinized in order of merits. Thereafter, further process of taking up Tier-IV (technical) shall be taken up for successful candidates (if not undertaken) within a period of two months from date of declaration of results of Tier III of above applicant(s) strictly as per merits for relevant examination year.
55 OA No. 4005/2017 & batch
29. It is made clear that the applicant(s) who are issued offer of appointment shall not be entitled to any arrears of salary. It is also made clear that the date of appointment shall be prospectively applied for grant of consequential relief(s). It is further directed that successful applicants as per merits shall be adjusted against either existing and/or anticipated vacancies for the year 2022-2023 and/or by creation of supernumerary posts as per administrative convenience.
30. Needless to say that in any event the above exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.
31. Pending MAs, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
( Sanjeeva Kumar ) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /sd/