Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Umesh Gahlot S/O Shri Ram Narain vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 January, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No. 1872/2008 MA No. 1381/2008 with OA No. 1925/2008 MA No. 1402/2008 New Delhi, this the day of January, 2009 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE MR. L.K.JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) OA No. 1872/2008 1. Umesh Gahlot S/o Shri Ram Narain, 402/7, Ashok Mohalla, Nangloi, Delhi-110041 2. Rakesh Beniwal S/o Shri Puran Singh House No.288, Village Pitampura, Delhi 3. Praveen Sharma S/o Shri K.M. Sharma House No.1630, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi-110007 4. Nirdesh Yadav S/o Shri Sajjan Singh, RZ-H A-83, Gali No.12, Raj Nagar Part II, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045 Applicants (By Advocate: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi, Through Secretary (Services), Delhi Secretariat, 7th Level B Wing I.P. Estate,New Delhi-110002 2. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Vijay Pandita) OA No. 1925/2008 1. Ved Prakash Singh S/o Shri Chand Singh, R/o Room No.77, Gywer Hall Hostel, University of Delhi, New Delhi-07 2. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Anup Singh, House No. 2091, Sector-2,3(Part), Rohtak (Haryana) Pin-124001 Applicants (By Advocate: Shri Manjit Singh) Versus Govt. of NCT Delhi through : 1. The Chief Secretary, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, New Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 2. The Secretary, Services Department, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, New Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 3. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, FC 18 Institutional Area, New Delhi-92 Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Vijay Pandita) ORDER
Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) By this common order, OAs No.1872/2008 and 1925/2008 are being disposed off together as they involve common questions of facts and law. We have extracted the facts from OA No.1872/2008.
2. Examinations for selection for the post in Grade-II of Delhi Administration Subordinate Service (DASS) were conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) in the year 2002. Because of the reasons, which would be adverted to later in this order, the result in regard to the Applicants was announced only on 10.12.2007 by Office Order No.238 of DSSSB (Annex B at page 25 of the paper book). The Applicants have been declared successful but they have not been issued letters of appointment and no reasons have been assigned for not doing so. The following reliefs have been sought in this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:
i) To direct the respondent No.1 to issue appointment letters to the applicants immediately so that they can join the post.
ii) To direct them to grant consequential benefits, the merit seniority and other benefit of the post in accordance with the law.
iii) Any other reliefs as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.
3. The undisputed facts of the case are that an advertisement for the post of Grade-II DASS was issued in the newspapers notifying 274 posts for selection. There were 47 seats reserved for Scheduled Caste category, 25 seats reserved for Scheduled Tribe category and 75 seats reserved for candidates belonging to OBC category. There were 121 unreserved seats. There was a sports quota also for which 13 seats were reserved. The educational qualifications mentioned in the advertisement for the aforesaid posts was Degree of a recognized University in Arts, Commerce, Science or Agriculture. The desirable qualification was knowledge of Hindi. The advertisement is placed at page 15 of the paper book. The Applicants were eligible for applying to this post and they applied before the closing date of submission of applications. The selection was to be made on the basis of merit in the written examination, which was held in November, 2002. There was no provision for interview. The first result of the above mentioned examination was declared on 10.01.2003. This result did not show the category of sports persons and SC, ST and OBC category candidates. The result was provisional and the persons whose names appeared, were given letters of appointment and they joined the service. Shri Umesh Gahlot and Shri Rakesh Beniwal, the first and second Applicants herein had applied under the sports quota and Shri Praveen Sharma and Shri Nirdesh Yadav, the third and the fourth Applicants herein belonged to the OBC category. It was disclosed to the Applicants and other candidates that the matter regarding eligibility of candidates who belonged to reserved category in Delhi and candidates belonging to these categories in other States was under consideration. The question under consideration was whether the candidates belonging to reserved category in other States would be eligible for the benefit of reservation in Delhi. The result of those belonging to ST, SC and OBC category, as per the list of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), was declared on 9.09.2003 and 24.03.2004. Later on it was decided, as mentioned in the circular dated 30.06.2005 of the Services Department of GNCTD, that all SC/ST category candidates, irrespective of the States they belonged to, would be eligible for grant of benefit of reservation irrespective of domicile. The result of all SC/ST was declared on 2.09.2005. Subsequently, the Services Department clarified by circular dated 27.07.2007 that OBC candidates belonging to the list of Delhi only would be considered for reservation for the posts in GNCTD. These results were declared on 10.12.2007. This result was also declared in the newspapers on 22.12.2007 (Annex `C at page 27 of the paper book). The third and the fourth Applicants in this OA were declared successful in the OBC category and the first and the second Applicants were declared successful in the category of sports persons in both the results declared by office order No.238 and the result published in the newspapers.
4. Meanwhile a controversy erupted between GNCTD, Services Department and the DSSSB. On 14.02.2008, the Services Department of GNCTD, the first Respondent herein wrote to the DSSSB, the second Respondent about forwarding of dossiers of 13 candidates by letter dated 31.12.2007 for appointment to the post of Grade-II DASS. It may be mentioned that this is the list of candidates who were declared successful by order dated 10.12.2007, as already referred to above. The latter took exception to the sending of fresh dossiers when the results had already been declared long back. It is stated that these candidates had been selected in an arbitrary manner, when the result of the said examination had already been declared in 2003-04. It asked for an enquiry into the matter and sending of a comprehensive report in this regard to the Services Department. The second Respondent sent a reply on 1.05.2008 explaining, inter alia, that because of the controversy regarding giving of benefit of reservation to SC, ST and OBC candidates not belonging to Delhi, only the result of the candidates belonging to unreserved category was declared on 10.01.2003. Other results were declared later on as has already been mentioned above. On receipt of the clarification from the Services Department by circular dated 27.07.2007 that only the OBC category candidates belonging to Delhi would be given the benefit of reservation, the result was finally declared on 10.12.2007 in regard to the candidates belonging to OBC category. It also states that the delay was beyond the control of the Board. It is also stated in this communication of the DSSSB that recruitment was closed with the approval of the Chairman, DSSSB on 7.12.2007, leaving 50 posts vacant. Finally, the DSSSB returned 13 dossiers of the candidates recommended for appointment to the post of Grade-II DASS to the first Respondent.
5. The Applicants made a representation on 8.07.2008 (Annex `G colly) to the second Respondent requesting that clarification may be given urgently to the Services Department and that information should be given to them about the issue of letters of appointment. The representations were also given to the first Respondent for issuing of letters of appointment on the same date. In the case of Assistant Teachers in the Directorate of Education for which the examination was conducted on 8.09.2002, the results had also been delayed because of the dispute regarding the benefit of reservation to the candidates belonging to SC, ST and OBC. In their case also, the results were declared by the second Respondent on 5.02.2008 (Annex `H) and these candidates have been given the letters of appointment, as annexed in regard to one of such persons at Annex `I at page 43 of the paper book.
6. The facts in OA 1925/2008 are identical and Ved Prakash, the first Applicant in this OA and Sanjay Kumar, the second Applicant are included in the quota for the sports persons in the result declared on 10.12.2007 at serial number 1 and 6 in that category.
7. The learned counsel for the Applicants has strenuously urged that there is no reason for the first Respondent not to issue the letters of appointment to the Applicants, when the second Respondent (DSSSB) has clarified the reasons for delay in declaration of result. The candidates cannot be made to suffer for delay in declaration of results, which was not due to any fault on their part. It is strongly urged that the Applicants cannot be denied appointment to the post for which they have been validly selected on the whims of the authorities. It is also contended that in similar circumstances, another department of GNCTD, namely the Department of Education, had issued letters of appointment in respect of Assistant Teachers.
8. The Respondents have contested the cause of the Applicants albeit weakly. Several judgements of the Honourable Supreme Court have been cited to contend that inclusion of name in the list of successful candidates does not confer an indefeasible right to be appointed. It is contended that a panel for selection can remain alive only for one year and can be extended at the most for six months and thereafter it is not for the Tribunal/ Court to issue directions to appoint people from the said panel. It is also contended that the DSSSB had conducted two more examinations for Grade-II of DASS in 2004 and 2006. It is contended in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit of the first Respondent that [T]herefore, it is submitted that the DSSSB could not have recommend candidate of 2002 advertisement after two more advertisement have been issued by the Board. It is further stated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit that:
it is clear that if these candidates had been declared successful in the exam, DSSSB should have forwarded their dossiers alongwith the other candidates of the same category. It is clear that there is a serious lapse on the part of DSSSB in declaring the aforesaid result. It may be seen that instead of enquiring the issue at length, the Board has merely referred the matter back to this Department and that too giving flimsy reasoning, which is very hard to digest. DSSSB vide their clarification has intimated that `at the time of inviting applications for the post, the Board did not ask for copies of documents regarding education etc., from the candidates. These documents were sought at a later date. Certain candidates in the consideration zone did not submit their documents on time, thereby causing delay in finalization of results. However, such reason is not adequate. It is also argued that there was no dispute pending before any Court of Law in respect of candidates belonging to sports category. Therefore, declaring them qualified at a belated stage was wrong for which clarification has been sought by the first Respondent from the second Respondent.
9. The second Respondent, while stating at the outset that the averments made in the OA are absolutely wrong and denied, has accepted all the facts stated in the OA in later part of the counter affidavit.
10. The Applicants have also filed rejoinders to the replies of both the Respondents. It has also been brought to our notice that in NDMC, the selections for the post of J.E. (Technical) were held on 20.10.2002 conducted by the DSSSB. In this case also, the result had been declared late and the letter of appointment had been issued by NDMC on 27.03.2008. It is also strongly contended that the judicial precedents cited by the Respondents have no application to the facts of the OAs in hand. The DSSSB had been announcing the results in piecemeal because of the controversy regarding the eligibility of candidates belonging to SC, ST and OBC categories. Similarly, the panel for the candidates belonging to the sports quota has been prepared for the first time only on 10.12.2007.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have carefully and minutely gone through all the documents placed before us with their assistance.
12. The question regarding the life of panel arises when more persons are included in the panel than the vacancies available at the time of appointment. In such cases, the life of the panel is generally fixed as one year unless otherwise mentioned in order to make appointments to the vacancies falling later on to avoid the expenses of fresh recruitment. In this case, the facts reveal that all the posts advertised in 2002 for Grade-II of DASS had not been filled up till the declaration of the final results on 10.12.2007. Even then, some posts seem to have remained for which results had not been declared as seen from the reply dated 1.05.2008 of the second Respondent addressed to the first Respondent. Moreover, it is abundantly clear from the facts that the results in the case of Applicants have not been declared because of the controversy regarding the eligibility of candidates belonging to SC, ST and OBC categories, which was a subject matter of dispute before the Honourable High Court and after resolution of the dispute, clarifications were issued by the Services Department in regard to SC/ST category candidates on 30.06.2005 and OBC category candidates on 27.07.2007. Clearly, the results in regard to OBC category candidates could not have been issued before this clarification was received. The contention of the first Respondent in the reply affidavit that the explanation for delay given by the DSSSB is based on flimsy grounds is amusing. The reasoning, as can be seen, is based on perfectly valid grounds. We are unable to understand the contention of the first Respondent regarding the explanation of DSSSB that documents regarding educational qualifications etc. could not be taken from the candidates in time and these were sought at a later date because the decision regarding the eligibility of OBCs was taken only in July, 2007. The explanation of the DSSSB is perfectly valid. Till the eligibility of the candidates belonging to OBC category could be decided, the DSSSB would not have asked for the documents regarding educational qualifications etc. These would be asked only when the Services Department clarified about the eligibility of these candidates. The reason given that only because of this delay the first Respondent could not declare the results, is in our considered opinion unacceptable. Clearly the first Respondent has badly messed up the whole issue. The Applicants are young people and at the threshold of starting a new life. The first Respondent cannot snuff out their legitimate aspiration with such cynical disregard to the facts of the case.
13. On the basis of above discussion, the OAs must succeed. The first Respondent has already received the dossiers from the second Respondent. We direct the first Respondent to issue appointment letters to the Applicants. The seniority of the Applicants would be decided on the basis of the merit position of the candidates selected for Grade-II of DASS on the basis of the examination held on 17.11.2002 for post code-022/2002. The above directions should be complied with within two months of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order may be placed in OA 1925/2008.
( L.K. JOSHI ) ( V.K. BALI ) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /dkm/