Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Vikram Singh vs Union Publc Service Commission on 30 May, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.1912/2012 New Delhi, this the 30th day of May, 2012 Honble Mr. Justice S. C. Sharma, Acting Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Shri Vikram Singh, S/o Shri Surender Singh, R/o H.No. 63, Vill & P.O. Alipur, Delhi 110036. .Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Amitabh Krishan) VERSUS 1. Union Publc Service Commission, Through its Secretary, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi 110069. 2. Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, Through Secretary. .Respondents : O R D E R (ORAL) : Justice S. C. Sharma, Acting Chairman :
The instant OA has been instituted for the following reliefs:-
(i) to direct the Respondent to re-allocate the preference of the Applicant by considering him for the post of DANIPS/DANICS/Indian Trade, subject to the conditions imposed by the Honble Tribunal vis-`-vis direct the Respondent No.2 to look into its order dated 06.02.2012.
(ii) to pass any such further order or direction as may in the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit and proper in favour of the Applicant and against the respondents;
(iii) to allow the present application of the Applicant with costs.
2. We have heard Shri Amitabh Krishan, Advocate for applicant and perused the entire facts of the case. It has been stated by the applicant that vide Right to Information Act, 2005, he came to know that he was selected for Civil Services Examination, 2010 with a rank of 522 in the General Category. The applicant was also informed vide communication dated 11.08.2011 for allocation of Indian P&T Accounts & Finance Service, Group A on the basis of Civil Services Examination, 2010. A representation was made by the applicant to the Ministry of DOP&T requesting for allocation of DANIPS/DANICS/Indian Trade Service, but there was no response made on the representation of the applicant for reallocation of service and the request for reallocation was turned down vide letter dated 6.0.2012 stating that the change of preference was not permissible under the Civil Services Rules. The applicant is entitled for reallocation of the Cadre of DANIPS/DANICS/Indian Trade Service.
3. Learned Advocate for the applicant referred to one order issued by Ministry of Communication and IT Department dated 11.08.2011 (Annexure-A7 colly) and in this letter it has been mentioned that the DOP&T has tentatively allocated the applicant the Indian P&T Accounts & Finance Service, Group A. Later on, learned advocate for the applicant referred to Para 3 of this letter, wherein, it has been stated that In case, you are already selected for another civil service through earlier exam or you have been reallocated to some other service, then kindly let us know immediately. This act of yours may help someone from the waiting list to get appointment in civil services. On the strength of these averments of the letter, it has been argued by the learned counsel for applicant that the cadre has been allocated to the applicant tentatively and not permanently and further it has also been provided that in case the applicant is reallocated to some other services then apprise the respondents. But it does not mean that the allocation has not been made permanently. Para 3 is regarding some other service, if selected, then it may help some other person to get appointment and the language has been used for allocation tentatively but it does not mean that permanent allocation has not been made. Moreover, in the impugned order it has been communicated to the applicant that as per Civil Services Rules change of preference is not permissible. Annexure A-1 is the impugned letter dated 6.02.2012 and it has been stated in this letter that I am directed to refer to your letter dated 12th January, 2012 on the subject cited above and to say that Service Allocation is made on the basis of Rank, Preference, Medical Status and Vacancy in the Category. You had expressed IP&TAFS a Group A Service as higher preference vis-`-vis DANIPS (as Group B). Accordingly, you have been allocated IP&TAFS. Change of preference is not permitted under Civil Services Rules. Hence, your request cannot be acceded to. Hence, from perusal of the order it is evident that the applicant has been allocated IP&TAFS. Change of preference is not permissible under Civil Services Rules and no rules has been cited before us that under which Rules the change of preference is admissible and permissible. As the change of preference is not permissible in view of the letter of Ministry of DOP&T then hw the OA is maintainable.
4. Moreover, from perusal of the Application Form of the applicant at Page 23 of the record, it is evident that the applicant has given preference for Indian P&T Accounts & Finance Service, Group A as sixth preference, whereas, the applicant now prayed that he may be given DANIPS/DANICS/Indian Trade Service. However, for Indian Trade Service his preference is Nil and for DANIPS his preference is 9 and for DANICS preference is 11. Hence, the respondents rightly allocated the Indian P&T Accounts & Finance Service, Group A to the applicant as it was at preference No.6 of the application form of the applicant and it cannot be said that the respondents have committed illegality in allocation of the cadre to the applicant. Now for the reasons best known to the applicant he is requesting for allocation of DANIPS/DANICS/Indian Trade Service. We agree that the change of preference is not permissible now. The OA lacks of merits and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
5. The OA is dismissed at the admission stage.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (S. C. Sharma) Member (A) Acting Chairman /pj/