Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
A K Singh vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 25 July, 2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.4149/2012
With
O.A.No.3846/3013
Order reserved on 24th January 2017
Order pronounced on 25th July 2017
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli, Chairman
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
O.A.No.4149/2012
Ajit Kumar Singh
s/o Mr. Surya Mani Prasad Singh
Shiv-II/14-A-9, Patel Nagar Colony
Shivpur Bypass, Chhatripur
Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh-221 003
Presently at:
365, Second Floor
Indra Vihar, Near Mukerjee Nagar
Delhi - 110 009
..Applicant
(Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension
Department of Personnel and Training
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001
2. Union Public Service Commission
Through Secretary
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi - 110 069
3. Secretary
Ministry of Defence
South Block, New Delhi - 110 001
2
O.A.No.4149/2012 &
O.A.No.3846/2013
4. Secretary
Ministry of Railways
Rail Bhawan, Delhi - 110 001
5. Secretary, Finance
Ministry of Finance
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001
6. Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block, Central Secretariat
New Delhi - 110 001
7. Secretary
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Shastri Bhawan
Delhi - 110 001
8. Comptroller and Auditor General of India
9, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi
..Respondents
(Mr. R N Singh, Mr. Krishna Kant Sharma, Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal,
Mr. Subhash Gosain, Mr. Rajinder Nischal, Mr. M K Bhardwaj and
Ms. Aditi Gupta for Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advocates for respective
respondents)
O.A.No.3846/2013
Ajit Kumar Singh
s/o Mr. Surya Mani Prasad Singh
Shiv-II/14-A-9, Patel Nagar Colony
Shivpur Bypass, Chhatripur
Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh-221 003
..Applicant
(Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension
Department of Personnel and Training
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001
2. Union Public Service Commission
Through its Chairman
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi - 110 069
3
O.A.No.4149/2012 &
O.A.No.3846/2013
3. Ministry of External Affairs
Through its Under Secretary (FSP & Cadre)
Room No.35-A, Ground floor
South Block, New Delhi
4. Ministry of Finance
d/o Revenue
through its Section Officer, Admin-III
Room No.243, North Block
New Delhi
5. Ministry of Finance
Through Section Officer, Admn. VI
o/o Revenue, CBDT
New Delhi
6. Ministry of Railways
Through its Dy. Director, Estt. (GR)
Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi
7. Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India
Through its Assistant C & AG (P)
9, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi
8. Member (Finance) of Telecom Commission
o/o Telecommunication
through its Director (SEA)
Room No.710, Sanchar Bhavan
New Delhi
9. Ministry of Home Affairs
Under Secretary UTS Section
North Block, New Delhi'
10. Chief Secretary, Pondicherry Government
Pondicherry
11. Office of the Controller General of Accounts
Through its Dy. CGA
d/o Expenditure
Room No.726, Lok Nayak Bhavan
New Delhi
12. Ministry of Communication & IT
D/o Post, through its Asstt. Dir. General (SGP)
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi
13. Joint Director General of Foreign Trade
Directorate General of Foreign Trade
Department of Commerce
4
O.A.No.4149/2012 &
O.A.No.3846/2013
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Room No.107, 1st Floor, H Wing
Udyog Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 011
14. Ministry of Defence,
D/o Defence Production
Through its Under Secretary (D-FY I)
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi
15. Ministry of Defence
Through its Under Secretary (D-Aptt)
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi
16. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Through its Under Secretary
IIS Section, Shashtri Bhawan
Delhi - 110 001
17. Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Through its Under Secretary
Room No.537, 5th Floor, A Wingh,
Shashtri Bhawan,
Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110 001
18. Office of the JS (Trg./) & CAO
Ministry of Defence
Through its Dy. Director (Rect.)
Room No.170, E Block
C-II, Hutments, Dalhousie Road
New Delhi -110 001
19. Ministry of Defence (Finance)
Through OSD
Room No.15, South Block
Delhi - 110 001
20. Ministry of Railway,
Through its Dy Director Estt. (GR)
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan
New Delhi
..Respondents
(Mr. R N Singh, Mr. Krishna Kant Sharma, Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal,
Mr. Subhash Gosain, Mr. Rajinder Nischal, Mr. M K Bhardwaj and
Ms. Aditi Gupta for Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advocates for respective
respondents)
5
O.A.No.4149/2012 &
O.A.No.3846/2013
ORDER
Justice Permod Kohli:
Both these O.As. (O.A. Nos.4149/2012 & 3846/2013) have been filed by the same applicant with similar factual background.
Controversy in both these Applications is common. The only distinction is that O.A. No.4149/2012 relates to Civil Services Examination (CSE), 2009 whereas the O.A. No.3846/2013 relates to CSE, 2012. Facts are being noticed from O.A. No.4149/2012.
2. The applicant belongs to physically handicapped (PH) category (PH-II - low vision) and is from Other Backward Class (OBC). The claim of the applicant in this petition relates to his consideration for appointment against any of the vacancies advertised for CSE, 2009 on the basis of his merit in the said Examination, as also against the backlog vacancies to be worked out by the respondents pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govt. of India through Secretary & another v. Ravi Prakash Gupta & another, (2010) 7 SCC 626.
3. The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) issued Advertisement on 06.12.2008 for CSE, 2009 inviting applications for various Services indicated therein. The aforesaid Advertisement also referred to the Services identified suitable for physically disabled category and number of vacancies reserved there-against as per Note. As many as 989 posts were advertised for appointment for various 6 O.A.No.4149/2012 & O.A.No.3846/2013 categories. The Service-wise and category-wise vacancy position is reflected in Annexure A-4. However, in the said Annexure A-4, the number of vacancies for PH category were not notified. The applicant appeared in the Civil Service (Main) Examination, 2009 after having qualified the Preliminary Examination and was declared successful in the said Examination. He was called for interview. It is stated that he performed very well. The applicant has disclosed his marks secured by him, in paragraph 4.8 of the O.A. He secured 949 marks out of 2300. In the final result of CSE, 2009, 5 candidates were selected in PH category (visually impaired). However, only 4 candidates were appointed pursuant to the final result. It is stated that the applicant was not considered for appointment despite availability of other vacancies meant for disability for blindness or low vision (PH-II). During this period, the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered the judgment in Ravi Prakash Gupta's case (supra) and on consideration of the entire scheme of provisions contained in Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short "Disability Act, 1995") issued the following directions:-
"17. While it cannot be denied that unless posts are identified for the purposes of Section 33 of the aforesaid Act, no appointments from the reserved categories contained therein can be made, and that to such extent the provisions of Section 33 are dependent on Section 32 of the Act, as submitted by the learned ASG, but the extent of such dependence would be for the purpose of making appointments and not for the purpose of making reservation. In other words, reservation under Section 33 of the Act is not dependent on identification, as urged on behalf of the Union of India, though a duty has been cast upon the appropriate Government to make appointments in the number of posts reserved for the three categories mentioned in Section 33 of the Act in respect of persons suffering from the disabilities spelt out 7 O.A.No.4149/2012 & O.A.No.3846/2013 therein. In fact, a situation has also been noticed where on account of non-availability of candidates some of the reserved posts could remain vacant in a given year. For meeting such eventualities, provision was made to carry forward such vacancies for two years after which they would lapse. Since in the instant case such a situation did not arise and posts were not reserved under Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, the question of carrying forward of vacancies or lapse thereof, does not arise."
4. The applicant filed O.A. No.3071/2011 before this Tribunal seeking a direction for his consideration for appointment to the Service according to his preference against the total posts meant for PH category and the backlog vacancies under the reservation for disabled categories in accordance with the directions issued by the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta's case (supra). The aforesaid O.A. was disposed of by this Tribunal vide its judgment dated 01.03.2012 (Annexure A-11) with the following observations/directions:
"2. In the reply filed on behalf of UPSC, what has been stated is that all the backlog vacancies have been worked out, and further that the applicant could not qualify as he had secured only 943 marks whereas the last candidate appointed in his category secured 1044 marks. There is absolutely no rebuttal to the pleadings made by the applicant in the OA and rejoinder referred to above. On the basis of records available before us what appears is that the respondents have filled only four vacancies out of nine, and that being so, the claim of the applicant would be for appointment against the remaining five seats in his quota.
3. Even though, for the reasons that the pleadings made by the applicant in the OA and the rejoinder, referred to above, have not been specifically denied, it could well be taken that the facts stated therein are correct, but yet, we will direct the respondents to consider this aspect of the case, and if only four candidates in the category of the disability of the applicant have been appointed, the applicant from amongst remaining five vacancies, shall be considered for his appointment, subject of course, to his being in merit from amongst said five candidates.8
O.A.No.4149/2012 & O.A.No.3846/2013
4. Let the exercise, as ordained above, be completed as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
5. However, UPSC, vide impugned letter dated 9.05.2012, rejected the claim of the applicant with the following:-
"Sir, Kindly refer to the Judgment of Hon'ble CAT, PB, New Delhi mentioned above.
2. In this context, it is informed that maintenance of the Roster and identification of vacancies for PH candidates are not done by this Commission. Respective Cadre Controlling Authorities (CCAs) of the various Services maintain the Roster, calculate and identify total vacancy and vacancies available for various categories, and send their requisition to this Commission. Some Services, like IPS, DANIPS, etc. are exempt from providing PH reservation. It is not always the fact that 1% of total vacancy reported would come out for each PH category.
3. For Civil Services Examination 2009, total number of vacancies reported/available in PH-2 category was 5 (Five) only while your rank among the PH-2 category candidates was fifteenth. Hence your name could not be recommended in that year.
4. It is further informed that, as per the Orders/ Judgments/ Directions of various Courts the backlog vacancies for PH candidates had already been worked out, Eight backlog vacancies were reported by the various Cadre Controlling Authorities for PH-2 (Visually Impaired) category candidates. Out of these some vacancies were allocated to CSE, 2006 so that PH-2 category candidates of CSE 2006 who had secured higher marks than Shri Ravi Prakash Gupta could be accommodated as per Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in SLP No.14880/2009 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court's order in WP (C) No.5429/2008. From the remaining backlog vacancies, recommendations were made for the candidates of CSE 2008 and CSE, 2009 to accommodate the Applicant as per the order of Hon'ble CAT, PB, New Delhi in OA No.1893/2009 and linked/related cases and OA No.1607/2011. Your name could not be recommended as you do not come in the zone of recommendation, as per marks/merit secured by you in CSE, 2009.9
O.A.No.4149/2012 & O.A.No.3846/2013
5. In view of the above, it is regretted that UPSC cannot recommend you for appointment to the DOP&T."
6. Present O.A. (O.A. No.4149/2012) has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"i) Quash letter dated 9.5.2012 issued by the Respondent No.2 (UPSC);
ii) direct the respondents to identify and workout backlog vacancies and total vacancies for PH-II categories against total vacancies, including all the Cadres.
iii) consider the Applicant herein for appointment to the Service according to his preference services against the total posts against the "physically handicapped category in Civil Services Examination, 2009 and the backlog vacancies under the reservation for disabled categories PH-II provided for under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995; and
iv) To pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
7. The applicant sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005. The said information has been placed on record as Annexure A-14, whereby it was informed that three candidates were appointed under the visually disabled (VD) category in CSE, 2009. In paragraph 4.22 of the O.A., the applicant has extracted the information received in response to various queries sought under Right to Information Act. The same is reproduced hereunder:-
"(i) Altogether 15 candidates only have been appointed in PH-
II category and issue of working out backlog vacancies is under consideration. (Reply dated 31.3.2012) 10 O.A.No.4149/2012 & O.A.No.3846/2013
(ii) The existence of backlog vacancies could be ascertained only by getting information from various Cadre Controlling authorities. (Reply dated 22.6.2012).
(iii) The process of service allocation for all the three sub- categories of PH candidates against backlog vacancies is continue and information regarding exact vacancy position can be provided once the process is complete. (Reply dated 6.7.2012).
(iv) Sh. Pawan Kumar Sri Subodh Kumar Singh from CSE, 2009 has been appointed from backlog vacancy (meaning thereby that the total vacancies filled from CSE, 2009 against the vacancy for PH-2 category in CSE, 2009 is only 3 and not 5 as claimed by UPSC and therefore more candidates could be appointed) (Reply dated 27.7.2012)
(v) Total no. of vacancies in CSE, 2009 for PH-1, PH-II and PH-IIII categories are respectively 14, 5 and 11. (this implies that the mandate of Disability Act, providing 3% reservation (1% each for each categories) is not being followed. (Reply dated 27.7.2012)
(vi) Total number of vacancies from 1996 to 2009 are 7894 and only 13 candidates have been appointed in the IAS Cadre. (Reply dated 27.7.2012)."
8. Based upon the aforesaid information, it was pleaded that since the entire exercise worked out to fill the backlog vacancies has not been completed, the UPSC cannot reject the claim of the applicant. On the basis of information, it is stated that in CSE, 2009, the total number of vacancies under PH-I, PH-II, PH-III categories are 14, 5 & 11 respectively. According to the applicant, since there is 1% reservation in each category, out of total 30 vacancies, 10 ought to have been filled up from each category and the ratio of 14 : 5 : 11 has been maintained erroneously. It is also the case of the applicant that one Pawan Kumar was adjusted against the backlog vacancies in CSE, 2009 and thus only 2 vacancies have been filled up in PH-II category. 11
O.A.No.4149/2012 & O.A.No.3846/2013 The sum and substance of the case of the applicant is that all the backlog vacancies are being identified and thus the applicant had a right to be considered not only against the vacancies notified for CSE, 2009 but also against the backlog vacancies on the basis of his merit.
9. UPSC, in its counter affidavit, while referring to its role as a Constitutional body entrusted with the obligation in making selection to the public services, justified the rejection of the claim of the applicant vide letter dated 09.05.2012. It is further pleaded that the maintenance of the roster and identification of vacancies for PH candidates are not done by the Commission but by the cadre controlling authorities of respective Services. The respective cadre controlling authorities maintain the roster, calculate and identify the total number of vacancies available for various categories and send their requisition to the Commission. It is further stated that some of the Services, like IPS, DANIPS, etc. are exempt from providing reservation for physically challenged categories. It is also stated that it is not always that 1% of the total vacancies reported would constitute the reservation meant for each visually impaired category and for that matter, any other PH category. For CSE, 2009, the total PH-II category vacancies are stated to be 5. The rank of the applicant in the order of his seniority is 15th in PH-II (visually impaired) category. It is further stated that the applicant does not fall within the zone of recommendation and his name could not be recommended in the selection year 2009. The Commission has also mentioned that in accordance with the directions of various Courts, 8 backlog vacancies 12 O.A.No.4149/2012 & O.A.No.3846/2013 were reported by the various cadre controlling authorities for PH-II (visually impaired) category candidates. Out of 8 vacancies of PH-II category, 3 vacancies in the PH-II category were allocated to the CSE, 2006, so that the candidates, who had secured higher marks in the said Examination, were placed in the order of merit than Mr. Ravi Prakash Gupta and they were to be accommodated as per the judgment of Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta's case (supra), meaning thereby the recommendations were made in favour of candidates of CSE, 2008 and CSE, 2009 in order to accommodate the candidates as per the judgment / order of this Tribunal in O.A. No.1893/2009 - N Shravan Kumar v. UPSC & another, and connected matters as well as in O.A. No.1607/2011 - Subodh Kumar Singh v. UPSC & another.
10. It is further stated that after the exercise for working out the backlog vacancies for the years beginning 1996 till 2009 was carried out, the backlog vacancies for PH category were found to be 44, which were to be distributed for 3 PH categories candidates in the following manner:-
i) LDCP (PH-I) 20 ii) VI (PH-II) 8 iii) HI (PH-III) 16
It is accordingly stated that all backlog vacancies have been filled up. The Commission has placed on record the final vacancy statement as Annexure-II containing the details of PH category vacancies for the CSE, 2009. There is another document (Annexure-IV), which indicates the number of backlog vacancies reserved for physically disabled 13 O.A.No.4149/2012 & O.A.No.3846/2013 categories (1996-2009). In this document, out of 44 total vacancies, 20 are for locomotor disability or cerebral palsy (LDCP), 16 for visually impaired and 16 for hearing impaired.
11. UPSC has also placed on record a copy of communication dated 30.08.2011 (Annexure-V) written by it to the Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), giving details of backlog vacancies for PH category candidates in implementation of the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A. No.1538/2009 and related cases, as also Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta's case (supra). Vide this communication, against CES, 2008, application dossiers of 13 PH (10 PH-I (LDCP), 02 - PH-II (visually impaired) and 01 (hearing impaired) category candidates were forwarded. Similarly against CSE, 2009, application dossiers of 9 PH (08 - PH-I (LDCP) and 01 - PH-II (visually impaired) category candidates were forwarded. This communication clearly indicates that recommendations were made against such backlogs vacancies.
12. Respondent No.3, Ministry of Defence, has filed separate counter affidavit. It is the case of respondent No.3 that the requisition was sent to UPSC through its cadre controlling authority and DoPT for filling up all the vacant posts. The successful candidates recommended by the UPSC are allocated by the DoPT. In IDES, roster for PH category candidates has been maintained since 1995, i.e., from the very inception of the reservation policy for the candidates belonging to PH category. It is stated that according to roster, PH-I candidate fell at 14 O.A.No.4149/2012 & O.A.No.3846/2013 roster point 33 in the 100 point reservation roster which has been allotted to IDES. Out of CSE, 2009 one Mr. Ompal Singh at roster point 46, PH-2 candidate was allotted to said Service and out of CSE, 2011, one Mr. Mahesh Chandra Saini at the actual roster point 76 in the 100 point reservation roster and out of CSE, 2012 one Manisha Jat was allotted roster point 86. It is stated that after roster point, candidates have been allotted to IDES up to the roster point 86 in the 100 point reservation roster, and no reservation is left in IDES for remaining 14 posts for PH candidates.
13. Another counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.8 stating that no relief has been sought against the Comptroller and Auditor General. The said respondent has no role to play in the selection or appointment in CSE.
14. The applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit. He has disputed the number of backlog vacancies, as indicated by the UPSC in its counter affidavit, particularly 8 backlog vacancies in PH-II category. It is stated that reporting of 5 vacancies, out of 989 posts, is erroneous. The applicant has further claimed that he has to be accommodated by the respondents, as there is no cut-off mark prescribed by them for final selection. The applicant has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & another v. National Federation of the Blind & others (Civil Appeal No.9096/2013) decided on 08.10.2013.
15
O.A.No.4149/2012 & O.A.No.3846/2013
15. In the second O.A., i.e., O.A. No.3846/2013, the controversy is the same. The applicant participated in CSE, 2012. He qualified both Preliminary and Main Examinations and also appeared in interview. He secured 773 out of 2300 marks in the said Examination. The last selectee in CSE, 2012 under the PH category secured 942 marks. It is stated that initially 4 candidates in PH-II category were selected and the applicant was not considered for appointment despite availability of vacancies. Finally, only two candidates, namely, Aman Gupta and Gantra Komal Pravinbhai were appointed under the VD category.
16. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent (UPSC), apart from contesting the claim on merits, it is stated that the Application is also barred by time.
17. In the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India (DoPT), it is stated that that the UPSC, vide its letter dated 30.08.2011, recommended the names of the candidates for allocation of Service against backlog vacancies in PH category. The DoPT has given details of the year-wise vacancies from 1996 up to 2009, which read as under:-
Sl. No. Year Number of Vacancies 1. 1996 75 2. 1997 55 3. 1998 55 4. 1999 56 5. 2000 59 6. 2001 59 7. 2002 70 8. 2003 89 9. 2004 91 16 O.A.No.4149/2012 & O.A.No.3846/2013 10. 2005 87 11. 2006 89 12. 2007 111 13. 2008 120 14. 2009 131 Total 1147
18. It is further stated that as per roster in the series of 100 vacancies, 1st vacancy was reserved for visually impaired category, 34th vacancy for hearing impaired category and 67th for LDCP category. Hence, it was calculated that if there had been 3% reservation to PH category further divided as 1% for visually impaired persons, 1% reservation for the hearing impaired persons and 1% reservation for the LDCP persons from CSE, 1996 to CSE, 2009, 12 candidates would have been recommended in visually impaired, 12 in hearing impaired and 11 in LDCP categories respectively. The DoPT has also referred to communication dated 30.08.2011 from the UPSC whereby the recommendation was made against backlog vacancies pursuant to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta's case (supra). The details of this communication have already been indicated in paragraph 11 above. The names of the appointees against the backlog vacancies have also been indicated in paragraph 3.7.2 of the reply filed by DoPT in O.A. No.3846/2013.
19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the pleadings.
20. In Union of India & another v. National Federation of the Blind & others (supra), the Apex Court held that the reservation, 17 O.A.No.4149/2012 & O.A.No.3846/2013 as prescribed under the scheme of Disability Act, 1955, is mandatory with a rider that vacancies are to be identified in terms of Section 33 of the Act, and issued the following directions:-
"54) In our opinion, in order to ensure proper implementation of the reservation policy for the disabled and to protect their rights, it is necessary to issue the following directions:
(i) We hereby direct the appellant herein to issue an appropriate order modifying the OM dated 29.12.2005 and the subsequent OMs consistent with this Court's Order within three months from the date of passing of this judgment.
(ii) We hereby direct the "appropriate Government" to compute the number of vacancies available in all the "establishments" and further identify the posts for disabled persons within a period of three months from today and implement the same without default.
(iii) The appellant herein shall issue instructions to all the departments /public sector undertakings/ Government companies declaring that the non observance of the scheme of reservation for persons with disabilities should be considered as an act of non-obedience and Nodal Officer in department/public sector undertakings/Government companies, responsible for the proper strict implementation of reservation for person with disabilities, be departmentally proceeded against for the default.
21. Pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, the UPSC has produced the record of the Main Examination of 2012. It is seen that the last recommendee under PH-II (visually impaired) category secured 942 marks, whereas the applicant secured 773 marks and is 11th in merit after the last selectee in CSE, 2012. The UPSC has claimed privilege in respect to the record of selection. In any case, the Tribunal has considered the said record itself.
22. The respondents have identified the vacancies in various Services for all the three PH categories. In Ravi Prakash Gupta's case 18 O.A.No.4149/2012 & O.A.No.3846/2013 (supra), a clear direction was issued to workout the backlog vacancies and date of appointment against the backlog vacancies. The UPSC, in its communication dated 30.08.2011, has specifically dealt with the question of backlog vacancies and had made recommendations for the same. The backlog vacancies have been allocated against CSE, 2008 and CSE, 2009 and such candidates, who had secured more marks than Ravi Prakash Gupta, were adjusted. All the backlog vacancies, particularly against visually impaired category, have been filled up, as per the communication referred to above. The applicant has not placed on record any other material to establish that backlog vacancies have not been correctly worked out. It is relevant to note that the reserved vacancies are to be determined not against the advertised vacancies but against the total cadre strength in particular Service. It is also not necessary that the reserved vacancies under PH categories have to be equal in every selection. The number of vacancies for different categories could vary depending upon the earlier selections, e.g., if in the year 2008 more candidates applied for the said category and vacancies have been filled up against a particular PH category, in the next selection the number against the said category could be less; and if less number of selection in the earlier selection, the number could be more. Thus, the contention of the applicant that for each PH category only 1% reservation having been provided, the number of vacancies, belonging to each category, should be equal, is totally misconceived. The respondents have worked out the vacancies belonging to each category on the basis of their roster point. The fixation of roster point 19 O.A.No.4149/2012 & O.A.No.3846/2013 has not been assailed in any manner. We also do not find that the roster point is erroneous. The applicant's merit in both CSEs 2009 & 2012 is much below than the last selectee.
23. We do not find any merit in the present O.As. Both these O.As. are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
24. In view of this, all ancillary Applications stand disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be placed in both the files.
( Ms. Nita Chowdhury ) ( Justice Permod Kohli ) Member (A) Chairman /sunil/