Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Manoj Verma vs M/O Finance on 10 August, 2017

                  1              OA No.3587/2014



              Central Administrative Tribunal
                      Principal Bench

                      OA No.3587/2014

                                Order reserved on :03.08.2017
                             Order pronounced on :10.08.2017

          Hon'ble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
         Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)

1. Manoj Verma, Aged about 25 years,
   Working as Inspector (Central Excise),
   S/o Shri Naresh Kumar Verma,
   R/o H.No.75, Type-II, MDU Campus,
   Rohtak, Haryana.

2. Nitin Kumar, Aged about 24 years,
   Working as Inspector (Central Excise),
   S/o Shri Naresh Sindhu,
   R/o H.No. 404, VPO Pehladpur (Banger),
   Delhi-42.

3. Lokesh Kumar, Aged about 23 years,
   Working as Inspector (Central Excise),
   S/o Shri Ravi Parkash,
   R/o Ad-64, HMT Colony, Pinjor,
   Panchkula, Haryana.

4. Rahul Jain, Aged about 25 years,
   Working as Inspector (Central Excise),
   S/o Shri Sunil Jain,
   R/o H.No.58/14 Ashok Nagar,
   Gannaur, Sonepat, Haryana.

5. Kuldeep, Aged about 23 years,
   Working as Inspector (Central Excise),
   S/o Shri Satpal,
   R/o H.No. 2294/10 Ram Gopal Colony,
   Rohtak, Haryana.

6. Vijay Kumar, Aged about 28 years,
   Working as Inspector (Central Excise),
   S/o Shri Ishwar Singh,
   R/o H.No. 9, Pkt.2,
   Sector 24, Rohini, Delhi.
                     2                OA No.3587/2014



  7. Anuj Kumar, Aged about 28 years,
     Working as Inspector (Central Excise),
     S/o Shri Khajan Singh,
     R/o VPO Badli Jhajjar,
     Haryana.

  8. Mihir Sen Narwal, Aged about 28 years,
     Working as Inspector (Central Excise),
     S/o Shri Jaglochan,
     R/o H.No.528, Old Housing Board Colony,
     Sirsa, Haryana.

  9. Mohit Khambra, Aged about 25 years,
     Working as Inspector (Central Excise),
     S/o Shri Som Parkash Khambra,
     R/o H.No.534, Sector-4,
     Urban State Kurukshetra,
     Haryana.
                                                        ...Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri M.K. 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,
     Govt. of India, 9th Floor,
     Hudco Vishala Building,
     Bhikaji Cama Place,
     New Delhi-110066.

  3. Department of Personnel and Training,
     Ministry of Personnel,
     Public Grievances and Pensions,
     Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi.

  4. Staff Selection Commissioner (SSC),
     Through its Chairman,
     C.G.O. Complex,
     New Delhi.
                                                       ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Subhash Gosain)
                        3               OA No.3587/2014




                                ORDER

Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A) The applicants were candidates for Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2012 (CGLE-2012). Staff Selection Commission (SSC) proposed to make State-wise allocation of the candidates taking into consideration the position in the merit list and option exercised by the candidates for the posts. The States/UTs for the purpose are grouped and coded as under:

  Code   State/UT               Code    State/UT

  A      Andhra Pradesh         O       Madhya Pradesh

  B      Arunachal Pradesh      P       Manipur

  C      Assam                  Q       Meghalaya

  D      Bihar                  R       Mizoram

  E      Chattisgarh            S       Nagaland

  F      Delhi                  T       Orissa

  G      Gujarat                U       Punjab, Haryana & Chandigarh

  H      Goa, Daman & Diu       V       Rajasthan

  I      Himachal Pradesh       W       Tripura

  J      Jammu & Kashmir        X       Tamil Nadu & Puducherry

  K      Jharkhand              Y       Uttarakhand

  L      Kerala & Lakshadweep   Z       Uttar Pradesh

  M      Karnataka              $       West Bengal & Sikkim

  N      Maharashtra, Dadra & #         Andaman & Nicobar
         Nagar Haveli

Thereafter, the Staff Selection Commission declared the results of CGLE 2012 on 30.05.2013. All the applicants were declared 4 OA No.3587/2014 selected for the post of Inspectors (Central Excise). They secured the Rank/Category and Preference/State as under:-

S.No. Name Rank/Category Preference/State

1. Manoj Verma 67/OBC UFVG

2. Nitin Kumar 227/gen. FU

3. Lokesh Kumar 276/Gen. UF

4. Rahul Jain 317/Gen. FU

5. Kuldeep 318/Gen. UF

6. Vijay Kumar 347/Gen. FU

7. Anuj Kumar 941/OBC FUV

8. Mihir Sen 2363/SC UF Narwal

9. Mohit 2886/SC FU Khambra Their grievance is that that despite directions from the recruiting agency i.e. SSC the allotment of Commissionerate by the recruiting departments/Respondents No.1 to 3 has not been done strictly on the basis of the Pin Codes given in permanent address of the applicants, which read as under:-

S.No. Name Rank/Category Preference/PIN

1. Manoj Verma 67/OBC UFVG/Rohtak-

124001

2. Nitin Kumar 227/gen. FU/Delhi-110042

3. Lokesh Kumar 276/Gen. UF/Panchkula-

134101

4. Rahul Jain 317/Gen. FU/Sonipat-

1311-1

5. Kuldeep 318/Gen. UF/Rohtak-

124001

6. Vijay Kumar 347/Gen. FU/Delhi-110088

7. Anuj Kumar 941/OBC FUV/Jhajjar-

124105

8. Mihir Sen Narwal 2363/SC UF/Sirsa-125055

9. Mohit Khambra 2886/SC FU/Kurukshtra-

136118 From the above, it is clear that the respondents have allotted the Commissionerates on the basis of their own instructions, which provided that such allotment be done on the basis of merit-cum- preference. The applicants had made representations in June, 2014 (Annexure A-7 Colly) in this regard but nothing was done in their cases, therefore, they filed RTI to know the details of allocation done pursuant to CGLE 2012. The respondents provided information vide letter dated 30.07.2014. They have thus filed this O.A. seeking the following reliefs:-

"(a) To direct the respondents to allocate the zone to the applicants as per the criteria prescribed in the advertisement and letter/order No.3/1/2011-P&P-1 dated 21.02.2013.

(b) To direct the respondents to allocate Delhi Zone to applicants consequent upon their selection and appointment as Central Excise Inspector.

( c) To declare the action of the respondents in changing the criteria for allocation of Zone/Commissionerate for Inspector, Central Excise appointed on the basis of CGLE-2012 as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to make allocation as 6 OA No.3587/2014 per the criteria prescribed in the advertisement and leter dated 21.02.2013.

(d) To allow the OA with costs".

(e) Any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice."

2. The contention of the applicants is that the respondents No.1 to 3 have erred in allotment of Commissionerates as they have not followed the directions issued by the recruiting agency i.e. Respondent No.4 (SSC). The applicants have produced letter No. 3/1/2011-P&P-I dated 21.02.2013 (Annexure A-3) issued by the SSC to their Regional Directors. Para (iii) of said letter reads as under:-

"The dossiers of candidates selected for the posts of Inspector (Income Tax), Inspector (Central Excise), Tax Assistant in CBDT and Tax Assistant in CBEC may be sent centrally to the designated officer in CBEC/CBDT CBDT/CBEC should be clearly advised that State-wise allotment already made by the Commission should be strictly followed. Candidates will be allotted to different Commissionaires within the same State on the basis of the pin codes given in permanent address of candidates."

3. According to the applicants, the respondents issued their own Instructions vide letter dated 16.09.2013 (page 97) which provided for allotment of Commissionerates on the basis of merit-cum- preference. According to them, not following the guidelines of the recruiting agency was wrong as it was the duty of respondents No. 1 7 OA No.3587/2014 to 3 to implement the directions of respondent No.4. Moreover, all the applicants except applicant No.6 are permanent residents of District Rohtak, Panchkula, Sirsa and Kurukshetra in Haryana. The applicant No.6 is a permanent resident of Delhi. They allege that applicants were allotted the Zone by changing the criteria, which reads as under:-

S.No. Name Zone to be Zone of allocation allotted

1. Manoj Verma Delhi Chandigarh

2. Nitin Kumar Delhi Chandigarh

3. Lokesh Kumar Delhi Chandigarh

4. Rahul Jain Haryana Chandigarh

5. Kuldeep Delhi Chandigarh

6. Vijay Kumar Delhi Chandigarh

7. Anuj Kumar Haryana Chandigarh

8. Mihir Sen Narwal Haryana Chandigarh

9. Mohit Khambra Delhi Chandigarh

4. From the above table, it is made clear that all the applicants had preferred Delhi and Haryana State and as per the criteria prescribed for allocation of Zone, the applicants were required to be given posting in the State of their choice by taking note of PIN Codes as given by them. As per the information provided by the respondents vide letter dated 30.07.2014, initially the allocation was done correctly but the same was changed later on. Applicants 8 OA No.3587/2014 further aver that even assuming for the sake of arguments if they were not getting the choice of their State, they could be shifted to nearest available state and not to different Zones as done in the present case. They state that respondents No.1 to 3 on their own clubbed the Zones without any rhyme and reason. They have thus prayed that the OA be allowed.

5. Applicants have relied upon a judgment/order given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. ( C) 5048/2013 - Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs. U.O.I. & Others decided on 21.08.2013 to support their claim that OA should not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

6. The respondent No.4-SSC have filed reply in which they have stated that the reliefs sought by the applicants are from respondents No. 1 to 3 and as such they were not concerned with the subject matter of this O.A. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have also filed their reply in which they have stated that for direct recruitment for the post of Inspectors, 29 vacancies were reported for Delhi and 46 for Chandigarh for CGLE, 2012. The break up of the vacancies was as under:-

     State           UR   OBC SC       ST    Total

     Delhi           15   08     04    02    29

     Chandigarh      22   14     07    03    46

     Total :         37   22     11    05    75
                       9                  OA No.3587/2014

This Zone has received 57 dossiers in all, vide Board's letter dated Nil in the following categories:-

     Category         UR    OBC SC        ST        Total

     Received         25    18      10    04        57

Further, the Board vide their letter No. A-12034/SSC/2/2012- Ad.III(B) dated 16.09.2013 intimated that SSC had clubbed the vacancies of Delhi and Chandigarh under code preference "F" and forwarded the dossiers to CBEC for onward allocation. CBEC Board vide its letter ibid forwarded the dossier of Delhi and Chandigarh Zones with a direction to allocate the dossiers between Delhi and Chandigarh on merit-cum-preference basis. The CBEC further also directed that if the dossiers are less than the intimated vacancies, then allocation is to be done proportionately. The category-wise percentage of received dossiers was as follows:-

     Category         UR         OBC           SC        ST

     Received         67.50% 81.80%        90.9%         80%

Hence, this Zone made allocation of dossiers as per directions of Board's letter dated 16.09.2013 taking "U" preference as Chandigarh and "F" preference as Delhi as per SSC instructions. Accordingly, allocation was done on merit-cum-preference as under:-

INSPECTORS CGL 2012 10 OA No.3587/2014 DELHI S. NAME DOB CAT RANK IST IIND State in PREF PREF permanent No. address 1 DEEPAK 3.01.86 UR 99 F U Haryana NARWAL 2 GAURAV 05.10.86 UR 108 F U Haryana SINGH 3 SANGEETA 11.10.88 UR 110 F U Haryana 4 RAJESH 02.12.86 UR (OBC) 160 F Delhi KUMAR YADAV 5 MOHD WASIM 05.08.86 UR 164 F U Uttara Khand 6 DEEPAK 30.10.88 UR 170 F U Haryana 7 SUMIT 21.10.89 UR(OBC) 189 F U Haryana KUMAR 8 YADU 22.03.87 UR 210 F U Rajasthan BHARDWAJ 9 DHARMENDE 20.02.90 UR 215 F V Haryana R 10 ASHISH 29.02.88 UR 224 F U Haryana CHAWLA CHANDIGARH 1 MANOJ VERMA 14.05.89 UR (OBC) 67 U F 2 PRADEEP 02.07.88 UR 136 U F SHEORAN 3 NAVEEN 03.03.86 UR 187 U F JINDAL 4 NITIN KUMAR 27.09.89 UR 227 F U 5 KARAN VOHRA 07.08.88 UR 247 U F 6 RAGHU 15.04.89 UR 254 U F SHARMA 7 AASHISH 02.10.87 UR 255 F GUPTA 8 LOKESH 28.12.90 UR 276 U F KUMAR 9 RAHUL JAIN 27.09.89 UR 317 F U 10 KULDEEP 19.12.91 UR 318 U F 11 OA No.3587/2014 11 SHALINI 21.11.90 UR 339 F U DUHAN 12 LAV BISHT 11.03.88 UR 343 F U 13 TAMANPREET 10.12.89 UR 346 U F SINGH 14 VIJAY KUMAR 04.10.85 UR 347 F U 15 BHUVNESH 21.12.87 UR 350 U F GUPTA DELHI SC CATEGORY NAME DOB CAT RANK PREFERENCE Naveen 28.11.89 SC 1880 F U Kumar Neeraj Jawa 20.02.87 SC 2169 F U Raman 06.02.86 SC 2471 F KMorwal Arun Kumar SC 2074 F CHANDIGARH NAME DOB CAT RANK PREFERENCE Mihir Sen 27.06.86 SC 2363 U F Narwal Vikas 05.02.88 SC 2710 U F Vishal 08.12.87 SC 2383 F U Kumar Mukul 04.01.88 SC 2854 F U Saroha Mohit 30.08.89 SC 2866 F U Khambra Pradeep 05.06.89 SC 2808 F Kumar DELHI SC CATEGORY NAME DOB CAT RANK PREFERENCE Manish 03.11.88 ST 3322 F U Kumar Meena Kuldeep 01.04.89 ST 3460 F U Meena 12 OA No.3587/2014 CHANDIGARH Rajani Meena 05.10.86 ST 3464 F U Avdesh 09.01.85 ST 3493 F U Meena

7. The Respondents further submitted that they took into consideration the option given by the applicants and, therefore, there is no flaw in allocating the Zones on the basis of their preference and merit. The first preference of applicants No.1, 3 and 5 was "U" in UR category, hence allotted Chandigarh Zone and applicants No.2, 4 & 6 were allotted Chandigarh Zone as their rank was below the rank of last candidate (Shri Ashish Chawal rank No.224) allotted Delhi Zone. Applicant No.7, who is an OBC candidate, was allotted Chandigarh Zone as he was below Shri Maozzam Ahmad (729 OBC), the last candidate allotted Delhi Zone in OBC category. Applicants No.8 & 9 were below Arun Kumar (2074/SC) in SC category so they were allotted Delhi Zone. They have thus submitted that there is nothing wrong in allocating the Zones to the applicants and the OA deserves to be dismissed.

8. The respondents also submitted that the same very issue was decided by this Tribunal in OA No. 3299/2014 titled as Shri Aashish Gupta Vs. Central Board of Excise and Customs & Others decided on 24.08.2015. They have thus prayed that the instant OA be dismissed.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings including the judgment relied upon by the respondents.

10. One of the important instructions issued to the candidates for CGLE-2012 is as under:-

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION Date of Exam : 01.07.2012 & 08.07.2012 Closing Date : 20.04.2012 NOTICE COMBINED GRADUATE LEVEL EXAMINATION, 2012 IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES

1. Commission will be holding Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2012 for recruitment to different posts for which Graduation from a recognized University is the minimum Educational Qualification. The Examination will comprise of two Tiers of Written Objective Type examination followed by Computer Proficiency Test/Interview/Skill test, wherever applicable as per the Scheme of Examination. Posts have been placed in two groups, inter-alia based on their Grade Pay and papers in Tier II examination/Interview. Preference for Posts, is to be indicated in the application. Candidates are requested to note that preference for Posts once exercised will be final. Request for change of preference will not be considered under any circumstance. For the post of Assistant in CSS, candidate shall have not more than three attempts unless covered by any of the exceptions notified by Government of India.

11. We have asked the respondents to produce the result/dossiers of CGLE-2012 and indicate the position of the applicants in the said dossiers, which read as under:-

S. NAME DOB CAT. Sel. RANK PREFERENCE Cat. (SL/I/) NO.

       1     MANOJ        14.05.1989 OBC       9      67        U   F   V
             VERMA                   (OBC
                                     Qualif
                                     ied as
                                     UR

       13    NITIN        27.09.1989 UR        9      227       F   U   Y
             KUMAR

       17    LOKESH       28.12.1990 UR        9      276       U   F   I
             KUMAR

       19    KULDEEP      19.12.1991 UR        9      318       U   F   H

       23    VIJAY        04.10.1985 UR        9      347       F   U   Y
             KUMAR

       40    MIHIR SEN    27.06.1986 SC        1      2363      U   F   V
             NARWAL

       46    MOHIT        30.08.1989 SC        1      2866      F   U
             KHAMBRA

12. The order relied upon by the applicants in Vishnu Kumar Gupta (supra) case is not of any help to the applicants as it was an order whereby Hon'ble High Court directed that the instant OA would not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Thus, this order is not of any help to the applicants as we have not passed any similar orders on the grounds of limitation.

13. A similar matter has been considered in CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the case of Aashis Gupta (supra) in the order 15 OA No.3587/2014 pronounced on 24.08.2015, wherein it has been clearly laid down as follows:-

"In our opinion, it is now well settled position that allocation of zones has to be done strictly on the basis of merit-cum- preference. From the pleadings of the rival parties, it is evident that this method has been followed by the respondents in allocating the zones. The applicant's contention that the zone allocation should have been on the basis of Pin Codes as advised by SSC, in our opinion cannot be accepted. In fact, we consider this direction of SSC to be wholly unnecessary. The allocation of zone is done by the appointing Ministry/Department and there was no need for SSC to advise the department to adhere to allocation on the basis of Pin Code. From the material placed on record, it is also clear that the respondents have not interfered with the States allocated by the SSC. In this case, SSC had clubbed the vacancies of Delhi and Chandigarh under Code preference "F" and had forwarded all the dossiers to Delhi Zone. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have thereafter followed the system of allocating zones on the basis of merit-cum-preference. Thus, we notice that all the 10 candidates allocated to Delhi had given first preference as "F", which stands for Delhi. Some of them had given their send preference as "U", which stands for Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. We also notice that all the candidates allocated to Delhi have ranked higher than the applicant. Thus, there has been no violation of the principle of zone allocation on the basis of merit-cum-preference. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the action of respondents No. 1 to 3".

( Nita Chowdhury )                              ( Raj Vir Sharma )
 Member (A)                                        Member (J)


Rakesh