Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Arvind Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission on 13 July, 2021
1
OA 1285/2021
Item No.3
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1285/2021
This the 13th Day of July, 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)
Hon'ble Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
Arvind Kumar (Aged about 24 years)
S/o Sh. Mewa Singh
R/o C-4/70, Swarn Park Extn II, Block-B,
Mundka, West Delhi - 110041
(candidate towards the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi
Police)
... Applicant
(By Advocates : Shri Anjani Kumar Rai and
Shri Man Mohan Kumar Jha )
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003
2. Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Marg, Ashoka Road, Connaught Place,
New Delhi - 110001
... Respondents
(By Advocates : Ms. Esha Mazumdar,
Ms. Neetu Mishra for Shri K.M. Singh )
2
OA 1285/2021
Item No.3
O R D E R (ORAL)
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:
The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued a notification in the year 2018 inviting applications for the post of Sub Inspector (SI) in Delhi Police (DP) and Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF). The applicant took part in it and appeared in the written test as well as the physical endurance test. On the basis of his performance, he was placed at rank No.88. His first preference was DP. However, that was denied to him on the ground that he did not hold a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license for motor cycle. It is stated that the applicant was appointed as SI in the Shashatra Seema Bal (SSB).
2. Applicant filed this OA, with a prayer to declare that he is entitled to be appointed to the post of SI in DP, and the respondents be directed to consider his case for appointment to that post and to extend him the consequential benefits.
3. The applicant contends that the stipulation in the advertisement that a candidate for the post of SI in DP must hold the LMV license for motor cycle is totally unrelated, irrelevant for selection and is discriminatory, insofar as it is 3 OA 1285/2021 Item No.3 stipulated only for male candidates. Various other contentions and grounds are also urged.
4. We heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Rai for Shri Man Mohan Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Neetu Mishra for Shri K. M. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
5. The post of SI was advertised in the year 2018 for DP as well as the CAPF. The applicant was quite meritorious at rank 88, and with that he was entitled to choose any establishment of his choice. The applicant has chosen DP. However, he could not be selected for that post in view of the fact that he did not fulfill a condition stipulated by the respondents.
6. One of the requirements for the post of SI in DP is contained in a Note appended to para 5 of the advertisement. It reads as under:-
"5. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AS ON 01.08.2018 Educational Qualification for all posts is Bachelor's degree from a recognized university or equivalent. Note-I : For the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police only : Male candidates must possess a valid Driving License for LMV (Motocycle and Car) on the date fixed for Physical Endurance and Measurement Tests. However, the candidates who do not have a Valid Driving License for LMV (Motorcycle and Car) are eligible for all other posts in CAPFs.4
OA 1285/2021 Item No.3 From this it is evident that the holding of LMV for Motor Cycle and Car, was essential for a candidate who wants to be appointed in DP. The applicant, however, is holding LMV, only for Car. We would have certainly discussed the various contentions urged by the applicant as regards the relevance or legality of that condition, but for the fact that he took part in the selection process and thereby he is estopped from challenging the condition. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhananjay Mallik v. State of Uttaranchal and Others 2008 (4) SCC 177 becomes relevant in this behalf. Added to that, the applicant did not challenge the condition in this OA also. Once the condition remains, the applicant cannot ignore it, and it cannot be said that the respondents committed any illegality in denying the selection to the applicant for the post of SI in DP.
7. We do not find any merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed.
(A.K. Bishnoi) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
Member (A) Chairman
/sd/pj/vb/akshaya/