Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Surendra Kumar Meena vs Delhi Development Authority on 18 March, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi. OA No.3555/2010 New Delhi this the 18th day of March, 2011. Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Surendra Kumar Meena, S/o Late Shri Mali Ram Meena, R/o C-7/154, SDA, DDA-103, Staff Quarter, New Delhi. .. Applicant By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma. Versus 1. Delhi Development Authority, Through its Vice Chairman, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi. 2. The Commissioner (Personnel), Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. 3. The Deputy Director (P-1), Delhi Development Authority, Personnel Branch, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. .. Respondents By Advocate : Mrs. P.K. Gupta. O R D E R (Oral)
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicant has challenged order dated 21.5.2010 (page 9) whereby he has been informed that his request for fixing his seniority from an earlier date cannot be acceded to as there is no provision for re-evaulation of answer sheets in the Recruitment Rules (hereinafter referred to as RRs). He has further sought a direction to the respondents to revise the result of the applicant in respect of the examination conducted in July/August, 2005 for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Ministerial) on the basis of re-evaluated revised marks in Hindi paper after granting him 20 marks by way of relaxation as done in the case of other reserved category candidates and include his name in the result dated 16.1.2006 and pass further orders for promotion from the date when other similarly situated persons were so promoted.
2. The brief facts of the case are that selection for the post of Assistant Director (Ministerial) was conducted in August, 2005. The result thereof was declared on 16.1.2006 wherein the applicant was not declared qualified in the Hindi paper as he had secured 36 marks in Hindi paper out of 150 whereas it was mandatory to get minimum 40% marks in each paper and 45% in aggregate in order to be qualified for promotion. Applicant had applied as ST candidate. According to the applicant, he is entitled to get 20 marks by way of relaxation.
3. It is stated by the counsel for the applicant that large number of Writ Petitions were filed in the Honble High Court of Delhi by number of candidates, who had failed in Hindi only. The applicant herein was also one of the petitioners in the said Writ Petition No.2795/2007 as petitioner No.4. According to the applicant, Honble High Court of Delhi had directed the respondents to reevaluate the papers and on re-evaulation of papers, applicant scored 41 marks in the Hindi paper out of 150 whereas earlier he had got 36 marks only, which is evident from page 20 of the paper book. In the meantime, DDA was brought within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, therefore, the Writ Petition was transferred to the Tribunal and had been renumbered as TA 13/2008. The said TA was dismissed as having become infructuous on 13.1.2010, in view of the fact that the only prayer of the applicant was to reevaluate Hindi paper which was done by the competent person appointed by the respondents (page 32 at 35).
4. Now contention of the applicant is that since he belonged to ST category, he was entitled to get 20 marks by way of relaxed standard and if that 20 marks were given to him, he would have secured 61 marks in Hindi which would be more than 40% marks in Hindi subject. Since he had already secured 45% marks in aggregate, he would be entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Ministerial). It has also been stated by the applicant that similarly relaxed standards have been given to the other candidates, therefore, the OA may be allowed.
5. Respondents have not disputed the fact that applicant on re-evaluation had secured 41 marks out of 150 and that he is entitled to get 20 marks as relaxed standard in the subject. They have only stated that there is no provision of reevaluation of answer sheets in the RRs, therefore, his request for promotion cannot be acceded to.
6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings. Admittedly, reevaluation of answer sheets was ordered by the Honble High Court of Delhi and on reevaluation, applicant had scored 41 marks in the Hindi paper, therefore, question of reevaluation does not arise at this stage because it has already been reevaluated. It is admitted by the respondents that applicant is entitled to get 20 marks by way of relaxation which has been given to other reserved candidates also. If he is given 20 marks in Hindi and it is added to 41 marks which he has secured on reevaluation, naturally it would make it 61 marks out of 150 which would be 40% or may be more by a fraction. Since it is an admitted position that applicant would be entitled to 20 marks and it has been given to other reserved candidates also, we direct the respondents to grant him 20 marks by way of relaxed standard in Hindi paper and treat it as 61 marks out of 150 in Hindi paper.
7. In view of the above, order dated 21.5.2010 is quashed and set aside. Since 61 marks would be more than 40% and applicant had admittedly got 45% marks in aggregate, he would be entitled to be promoted as Assistant Director (Ministerial) from the same date when persons of the same selection were promoted. Ordered accordingly.
8. With the above direction, this OA stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY) (MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Rakesh