Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Aman Kumar Gupta vs M/O Finance on 16 July, 2025
1
Item No. 36 (C-4) O.A No. 4158/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 4158/2015
Reserved on : 04.07.2025
Pronounced on : 16.07.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Aman Kumar Gupta,
Inspector Aged about 23 years,
S/o Sh. Jawahar Lal Gupta,
R/o MO Deshpura, P.O. Kopaganj, Distt. Mau,
U.P.-275305 ...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. 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. The Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Deptt. of Revenue, CBEC,
Hudco Vishala Building, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi.
2 OA No. 4158/2015
Item 36 (C-4)
5. Staff Selection Commissioner (SSC)
Through its Chairman,
C.G.O. Complex, New Delhi. .....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Piyush Gaur)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) To direct the respondents to allocate the Zone to the applicant as per the criteria. prescribed in the advertisement and letter/order no. 3/1/2011-P&P-1 dated 21.02.2013.
ii) To direct the respondents to allocate Delhi or U.P. Zone to applicant consequent upon his selection and appointment as Central Excise Inspector.
iii) 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 per the criteria prescribed in the advertisement and letter dated 21.02.2013.
iv) To allow the OA with costs.
v) Any other relief's as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice."
2. The factual background of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that on being declared successful vide result dated 30.05.2013 of the CGLE-2012 with 899 rank under OBC category, the applicant was issued offer of appointment to the post of Central Excise Inspector. However, he was not allocated any zone at the 3 OA No. 4158/2015 Item 36 (C-4) time of offer. Subsequently, vide letter dated 16.05.2014 the applicant was allocated Chandigarh Zone which though he joined; however preferred a representation on 20.10.2014 requesting for allocation to Delhi or U.P. zone. Counsel for the applicant averred that the select list very clearly showed that the applicant was selected for Delhi State. Moreover, the revised result also made it apparent that upto 1426 candidates were allotted UP Zone. Therefore, the respondents were at fault by not allotting him his preferred zones. Aggrieved by the same he sent a reminder also on 20.02.2015 in this regard. Thereafter his case was forwarded to CBEC for necessary action. But to no avail. Hence the applicant knocked the doors of this Tribunal.
3. The counsel of the applicant argued assiduously using the following grounds :-
"A. The respondents have acted in violation of article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as they have discriminated the applicant in the matter of allocation of Zones as evident from the Cadre/Zone allocation List. The candidates who opted for different States have been allocated Delhi and U.P by ignoring the criteria prescribed in the advertisement and in subsequent decisions. As per the criteria prescribed in the advertisement and in letter dated 21.02.2013 the applicant was entitled to be allocated U.P Zone as per his permanent resident/ pin code falls within Uttar Pradesh Zone, however, the applicant has been denied Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and allotted Chandigarh Zone and different States falling in the said Zone.4 OA No. 4158/2015
Item 36 (C-4) B. The respondents have given undue benefits to their own persons by changing the criteria without any justification. The most shocking part was that the respondents did not issue any list containing details of allocation of Zone and directly issued offer of appointment. The applicant was issued offer of appointment for joining in Chandigarh Zone in May, 2014. The applicant joined in said Zone without any delay.
C. The applicant's order of preference for Zone allocation as mentioned in para 4 of the OA has been ignored without any justification. When it was decided much before allocation of Zone that the candidates will be allotted to different Commissionerate/zone within the same state on the basis of PIN Code given in permanent address of candidates, how could the allocation be done by treating the preference of State as preference of Zone. If the respondents had explained the changed criteria in the application form or in subsequent decisions, the applicant would have exercised his option as per Zone and not otherwise.
D. The respondents have acted in violation of principle of natural justice inasmuch as, the criteria of allocation of zone/commissionerate was changed without giving any opportunity to the applicant to correct his option as per the new criteria.
E. Firstly, the respondents had no right to the criteria of allocation Zone/Commissioinerate and secondly if some of changes were required, the applicant as well as other candidates should have been given opportunity to submit their options as per the changes made in accordance with rules. In case such an opportunity was given, the applicant would have an opportunity to take appropriate steps before allocation of Zone. Since the respondents were conscious of their action of making allocation by changing 5 OA No. 4158/2015 Item 36 (C-4) the criteria would not stand judicial scrutiny, therefore, they did not issue even list of allocation of Zone and secretly offer of appointment by allocating zone to the candidates as per changed criteria.
F. The respondents have failed to consider that due to change of criteria in allocation of Zone behind the back of candidates, a grave prejudice has been caused to the applicant inasmuch as, he has been deprived for zone of his choice even after securing higher merit.
G. The entire respondents in not carrying out allocation of Zone pursuant to CGLE 2012 as per the criteria prescribed in the advertisement and in letter no. 3/1/2011-P & P-1 dated 21.02.2013 is highly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
H. The applicant is entitled to equal opportunities as per his qualification and merits and by discarding his candidature for the preferred cadre/zone, the respondents are guilty of violating the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
I. The respondents were required to allocate zone to the applicant as per his first preference as the persons who were below in merit have been given the zones of their first preference without any justification.
J. The respondents are stopped from changing the criteria for allocation of Zone from State-wise to Zone-wise that too by ignoring merit. When it was mentioned in the advertisement that the options regarding allocation were to be exercised as per the Codes reflecting different States in Groups, the respondents had no authority to make allocation as per Zones and ignoring the States.6 OA No. 4158/2015
Item 36 (C-4) K. The respondents action in changing the criteria of allocation of Zone after completion of selection process is highly illegal inasmuch as, it is settled law that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game is over or started. When the applicant had exercised options as per the criteria in the advertisement, the said criteria was required to be followed.
L. The respondents have even not stated correct facts in the letter dated 29.08.2014/03.09.2014 inasmuch as, in July, 2014 itself 28 Excise Inspectors were given joining in Delhi Zone under ICT. When the applicant was selected against the vacancies available in Delhi Zone, how could the respondents give said vacancies to the candidates who had requested for change of zone.
M. The respondents have failed to consider that the applicant was allocated Delhi State at the time of final selection, therefore he was entitled to be allocated Delhi. Furthermore, when the same was not done, even as per the criteria of merit-cum-preference, the applicant was entitled to get U.P being second preference and in view of the fact that the other candidates having Rank much below than applicant were allocated U.P. Zone."
4. While arguing, the counsel of the applicant handed across the Bar copy of identical OA decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal and relied upon by him which according to him covers all the four corners of this OA. The same is discussed below :-
1. OA No. 3797 of 2014 - Jatin Nagpal & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors. pronounced on 18.04.2022 - The excerpts of which are as under :-7 OA No. 4158/2015
Item 36 (C-4) "12. In the system, as was prevalent in the year 2011, when the applicants participated in the said examination, the interaction of the candidates was restricted to only the SSC. The choices both for posts as also the place of posting were submitted to the SSC and there was no connection or contact between the candidates and the user department.
We have been informed that from 2014 onwards, the system has changed to the extent that whereas the choice of posts is submitted to the SSC, further option for place of posting is submitted to the user department for which the candidate is selected. It is, therefore, apparent that in the relevant year 2011, regarding place of posting the candidates had to submit their preferences only as per the choices provided in the form prescribed by the SSC and not as per the classification decided by the individual user departments. It was for the SSC and the user department to coordinate among themselves so that no discrepancy or inconsistency arose, as has happened in the instant case. If there was any miscommunication or gaps in the sharing of the information in this regard, surely the applicants cannot be made to suffer for the same.
13. In the light of the foregoing discussions, it is directed that Respondent No.2-CBEC and Respondent No.3-SSC shall undertake such measures, as may be required, to allocate to the applicants a Region of which the State of Haryana is a part and pass necessary orders in this regard within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The applicants shall also be entitled to consequential benefits." He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P (C) No. 9641/2017 - Manoj Verma & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. pronounced on 06.05.2024. The excerpts of which are quoted below:-
"4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as also after perusing the record and the decision of the learned Tribunal in Sh. Jatin Nagpal (supra), we are of the considered view that the petitioners cannot be deprived of posting to the Delhi Zone i.e., the 'F' Zone where the State of Haryana falls for the mistake made by the SSC. Strictly speaking, had the State of Haryana been shown in the 'F' Zone, the petitioners would have surely opted for the 'F' Zone and the 'U' Zone to which they were posted by the respondents would never have been in consideration at all.8 OA No. 4158/2015
Item 36 (C-4)
5. Furthermore, we have been informed that even today vacancies of the Central Excise Inspector in the 'F' Zone are available to accommodate the petitioners. Therefore, in view of the overall circumstances as noted hereinabove, we find that the petitioners, who are meritorious candidates on the basis of their performance in the selection process, are very much entitled to be allocated the Zone of their choice. Furthermore, it is not even denied by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners had opted for the State of Haryana. We are, thus, of the view that the present petition deserves to be allowed by directing the respondents to allocate the petitioners suitable posting within the available vacancies in the Delhi Zone i.e. 'F' Zone wherein the State of Haryana falls, within a period of four weeks.
6. As the petitioners have been working in the 'U' Zone, i.e. the Chandigarh Zone, since the date of their appointment, therefore, while setting aside the impugned order and allowing the writ petition in the aforesaid terms, we direct that the petitioners shall also be entitled to all the notional benefits and seniority after being transferred to the Delhi Zone from the date of their initial appointment."
5. Per contra, counsel of the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 vehemently opposed the arguments of the counsel of the applicant and drew our attention to the charts in the counter showing breakup of intimated vacancies as also the category wise allocation done by the respondents. According to the respondents the SSC clubbed the vacancies for Delhi and Chandigarh and forwarded the dossiers of candidates, allocated to Delhi and Chandigarh zone to CBEC for onward allocation between Delhi and Chandigarh as per their merit and choice. Moreover, the Commission's advice was followed as the States were already allocated by the SSC. Hence, the allocation was strictly done between Delhi and Chandigarh. Thus, the question of allotting different commissionerates within the same State 9 OA No. 4158/2015 Item 36 (C-4) can be followed only after allocation of Zone/States. He added that the preferences of the candidates was also considered while allocating Delhi zone. He further added that Delhi Zone got 5 and Chandigarh Zone got 11 dossiers hence top 5 candidates who opted 'F' Delhi as their first preference were allotted Delhi and as the applicant was lower in merit he was allocated Chandigarh Zone and even those candidates who opted for Delhi Zone and were holding higher merit than the applicant were also allotted Chandigarh Zone. Moreover, those candidates who did not qualify for first preference on merit- cum-preference basis were allocated on the basis of their second preference. He further averred that the SSC has jurisdiction to allocate the second option of 'UP' State, thus Delhi Zone has no role to play.
Various grounds urged by the respondents in their counter are quoted below :-
"A. That the ground taken by the Applicants in para 5(A) of the OA is wrong and hence denied. Respondents did not act in violation of article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and the Applicant have not been discriminated in the matter of allocation of zones. This zone has received dossiers of Delhi and Chandigarh for allocation and accordingly made allocation on merit-cum preference basis as per CBEC advice. These candidates could not be allocated Delhi zone because they were below in rank/opted first preference as "U" (Chandigarh).10 OA No. 4158/2015
Item 36 (C-4) B. That the ground taken by the Applicants in para 5(B) of the OA is wrong and hence denied. Respondents did not give any undue benefit to their own persons as the process of allocation was crystal clear as shown in "Facts of the Case". One can easily make out that allocation has been done on merit-cum preference basis.
C. That the ground taken by the Applicants in para 5(c) of the OA is wrong and hence denied. Applicant's order of preference for zone allocation was not ignored as allocation has been done purely on the merit cum preference basis.
D. That the ground taken by the Applicants in para 5(D) of the OA is wrong and hence denied. There is no violation of principle of natural justice as the criteria of allocation of zone/Commissionerate not at all had been changed/avoided. The preference of candidates was strictly kept in mind while allocating the zones.
E. That the ground taken by the Applicants in para 5(E) of the OA is wrong and hence denied. Delhi zone did not change the criteria of allocation. Question of giving opportunity to submit fresh option did not arise as Commission had already made state wise allocation and Delhi was given direction to make allocation between Delhi and Chandigarh zone on merit-cum preference basis and as per the merit the Applicant is not eligible for Delhi zone.
F. That the ground taken by the Applicants in para 5(F) of the OA is wrong and hence denied. As allocation has been made on merit- cum preference basis hence there is prejudice to the applicant.11 OA No. 4158/2015
Item 36 (C-4) G. That the ground taken by the Applicants in para 5(G) of the OA is wrong and hence denied. Delhi Zone has made allocation as per advice of CBEC and instruction issued by the Staff Selection Commission, and hence, it is not illegal, arbitrary or unjustified.
H. That the ground taken by the Applicants in para 5(H) of the OA is wrong and hence denied. Delhi zone has, strictly followed the instruction by making allocation on merit-cum-preference basis between Delhi and Chandigarh. The candidate was given equal opportunities as per his merit and preference and hence, no question of violation of fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
I. That the ground taken by the Applicants in para 5(1) of the OA is wrong and hence denied. Delhi Zone has made allocation as per advice of CBEC and instruction issued by the Commission and no person below the merit of Sh. Aman Kumar Gupta in OBC category has been allocated Delhi zone.
J. That the ground taken by the Applicants in para 5(3) of the OA is wrong and hence denied. As Delhi zone was asked to make allocation between Delhi/Chandigarh zones on merit-cum- preference basis, hence, this Zone made allocation only between these two zones.
K. That the ground taken by the Applicants in para 5(K) of the OA is wrong and hence denied. This Zone strictly followed the instruction received for allocation hence made no change in criteria of allocation of Zones. The applicant has been allocated zone as per his merit-cum-preference. Hence, it is incorrect to call the entire process illegal.12 OA No. 4158/2015
Item 36 (C-4) L. That the ground taken by the Applicants in para 5(L) of the OA is wrong and hence denied. As all the candidates have got allocation as per criteria and preference hence, change of zone is not possible as it is out of preview of Delhi zone.
M. That the ground taken by the Applicants in para 5(M) of the OA is wrong and hence denied. Delhi zone neither ignored criteria nor merit at the time of making allocation. Delhi zone was directed to make allocation between Delhi and Chandigarh Zone on merit-cum preference and same was adhered to. Hence, question of ignoring state and allotting zone does not stand. The allegations of the applicant are denied in toto. In to further allocation of U.P. zone is also out of preview of Delhi zone."
To buttress his argument, counsel for the respondents relied upon the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Manoj Verma & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. in OA No. 3587/2014 pronounced on 10.08.2017, wherein it has been laid down as under :-
"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 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 13 OA No. 4158/2015 Item 36 (C-4) 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."
In this OA besides change in the parties listed as applicants, the entire controversy is the same. And as becomes clear from the consideration in para 12 above, the position of the applicants has been deduced from the details of the result of CGLE-2012 and the position of the applicants has been recorded above. From the same, it becomes clear that respondents No.1 to 3 have followed the laid down principle of allotting Zones on the basis of merit-cum-preference. We do not find any violation of the principles laid down in this regard. Hence, once it is found that there is no anomaly in the actions of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in allotting the Zones on the basis of merit-cum-preference, there is no ground to accept this OA and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
He also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 6154/2016 - Aashish Gupta vs. Central Board of Excise & Customs & Ors. dated 30.08.2016 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under:-
"12. We find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has 14 OA No. 4158/2015 Item 36 (C-4) completely misread the terms of the advertisement. We also find that the petitioner seems to have completely swayed by Clause 12 of the advertisement pertaining to Mode of Selection, as per which it was highlighted that the preference exercised by a candidate in the application form would be treated as final and irreversible and further a subsequent change of request would not be entertained in any circumstances/reasons.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly urged before this Court that since the petitioner had no option to change the preference exercised in the application form, the same should also be binding on the respondents In effect, that since the petitioner had given the option for Delhi, he should have been posted in Delhi alone The stand of the petitioner is neither borne out from the advertisement not a is logically plausible. In the present case, there were only 10 vacancies available in Delhi The respondents have filled up the vacancies in terms of the advertisement wherein, the respondents were entitled to take into consideration the position of the candidate in the merit lat and the option exercised for the post. The result of Delhi and Chandigarh zone has been extracted in para 10 above. The first 10 persons in the merit lat have been accommodated in Delhi and we find no infirmity in the stand of the respondents.
14. Since neither any mala fide has been alleged nor pointed out, neither it has been complained that a candidate who was down in merit compared to the petitioner has been selected for Delhi zone nor Clause B of the public advertisement has been violated by the respondents, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Resultantly, the petition must fail.
15. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly."
6. The short affidavit filed by respondent no. 5 (SSC) on 27.10.2016 clarified that they have no role in the allocation of Zone as the main relief claimed relates to respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4. Moreover, while forwarding dossiers of the selected candidates to the User department, SSC issued certain guidelines regarding nomination 15 OA No. 4158/2015 Item 36 (C-4) of selected candidates wherein State-wise allotment was made by the Commission which was to be strictly followed. Also the allotment of the candidates was to be done within the same State but different Commissionerates on the basis of the Pin Codes given in permanent address of candidates. Therefore, he prayed for deletion of respondent no. 5 (SSC) from the array of parties.
7. Rebutting the contentions of the respondents, counsel for the applicant filed rejoinder stating that the respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong when in the advertisement itself, it was prescribed that the allocation would be as per the Code prescribed for different States, which was required to be followed. However, the same was not followed. He denied the allegation of the respondents that the allocation falls under the jurisdiction of SSC and the Respondent nos. 1 to 4 have no role to play. Whereas the respondent no. 5 (SSC) in its counter stated that relief claimed relates to R-1 to 4 and prayed for deletion of R-5 (SSC) from the array of parties as they have no role to play in allocation of zone. Hence, the respondents are simply passing the ball to each others' Courts. He vehemently argued that no measures were taken by the respondents to rectify the anomaly of non-application of Codes for allocation of States. He highlighted that against code U, Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh were clubbed without realizing that some 16 OA No. 4158/2015 Item 36 (C-4) part of the Haryana falls in Delhi Commissionerate / zone and Punjab, Himachal are in Chandigarh Zone Commissionerate. However, the respondent no. 5 (SSC) realized the same and to prevent any prejudice to the candidates who had exercise their option as per the criteria mentioned in the advertisement, it was clarified that the allocation would be done on the basis of PIN codes given in permanent addresses. Have the respondents followed the same, all the issues would have been resolved without any prejudice to the candidates. However, the said criteria was not followed by the respondents. Rather, they followed merit-cum-preference criteria.
8. However, the latest Short Counter filed by the respondent no. 5 (SSC) dated 13.10.2023 very clearly and fairly stated that the SSC proposed to make State-wise allocation of the candidates keeping in view their position in the merit list and option exercised by them for the posts. He highlighted that vide result dated 30.05.2013 the applicant was declared selected for the post of Inspector (Central Excise) in CBEC for Delhi State and stated that in spite of clear direction vide letter dated 23.07.2013 from the SSC the allotment has not been done by the indenting department strictly on the basis of Pin Codes given in permanent address of the applicant. He added that along with the post allocation State allocation was also done by the SSC and the same are strictly in order of merit-cum-preference of candidates. He further added that most of the Departments had 17 OA No. 4158/2015 Item 36 (C-4) intimated State-wise vacancies however, the CBEC had intimated Zone-wise vacancies. Therefore, the candidates who were selected for various posts in CBEC were required to be allocated Zones instead of States. Moreover the States/UTs falling in State-Code 'U' (i.e. Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh) belonged to two CBEC zones i.e. Chandigarh and Delhi Zones of CBEC. State of Punjab and UT of Chandigarh were under the jurisdiction of Chandigarh Zone and Haryana was under the Delhi Zone of CBEC. To enable zones allocation to the candidates selected for various posts in CBEC, vacancies of such zones were required to be clubbed. Accordingly vacancies of Delhi and Chandigarh Zones of CBEC were clubbed. Further, the vacancies of State codes U, J and F were clubbed together and considered under one State code F. Meaning thereby that the candidates whose POSTSEL is 'F' they were allocated against the clubbed vacancies of Punjab, Haryana & Chandigarh (State code U), Jammu and Kashmir (State code J) and Delhi (State code F).
He forcefully argued that in the final result the applicant was in fact allotted his preferred State i.e. Delhi and his State/Zone was changed to Chandigarh by CBEC. Hence, the grievance of the applicant is not against SSC but against the user department. Thus, he stated that the SSC is only a proforma party in this case. Also the original record of the applicant including his option form for State has 18 OA No. 4158/2015 Item 36 (C-4) already been sent to the user department along with the dossier of the applicant which is in the custody of the user department.
9. Heard the rival submissions; perused the documents on record and considered the relevant judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Orders of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal. We have observed that the principle of 'merit-cum-preference' should have been followed by respondent no.2 - CBEC while allocating Zone/State to the candidates who participated in the examination conducted by Staff Selection Commission (SSC)-CGLE 2012. In the instant OA, the candidate preferred UP Zone as his permanent residence/Pin Code falls within U.P. He is also meritorious having secured 899 rank under OBC category vide result dated 30.05.2013 of CGLE-2012. Despite his high merit-cum-preference for UP; he was denied UP Zone and strangely allocated Chandigarh Zone. He had joined Chandigarh Zone in 2014; but at the same time represented on 20.10.2014 requesting for allocation to Delhi or UP Zone. The select list clearly showed that the applicant was selected for Delhi/U.P zone as also averred by the respondents in their counter affidavit but surprisingly he was allotted Chandigarh Zone. This is a violation of the 'due process of law' which should be just, reasonable and fair play in action and not arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive. Rule of Law should always be upheld and there should be no miscarriage of 19 OA No. 4158/2015 Item 36 (C-4) justice. We would therefore like to abide by and follow the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 9641/2017 on 06.05.2024 in Manoj Verma & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. (supra) where the Hon'ble High Court had reversed the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 3587/2014.
10. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the instant OA has merit; deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. We accordingly direct respondent no. 2 CBEC (now CBIC) to consider allocating Delhi or UP Zone to the applicant as per the criteria prescribed in the advertisement and letter/order no. 3/1/2011-P&P-1 dated 21.02.2013 based on his 'merit-cum- preference' upon his selection and appointment as Central Excise Inspector. The above exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/