Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pravesh Kumar Dabas vs Union Of India on 2 May, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No.3292/2012 M.A. No.2742/2012 New Delhi, this the 2nd day of May, 2014 HONBLE SHRI G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE SHRI P.K. BASU, MEMBER (A) 1. Pravesh Kumar Dabas S/o Shri Ishwar Singh R/o Flat No.188, Pocket-I Sector-22, DDA, SFS Flats, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077 2. Brijesh Beniwal S/o Shri Babu Singh Beniwal, R/o Plot No. 118-A, Rohini Nagar, Jagat Pura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. Dharmendra Singh, S/o Shri Premveer Singh R/o Village Lakkhi Ka Nangla, Post Tassai, Tehsil Kathumar Distt. Awar-321605, Rajasthan 4. Jitendra Kumar S/o Shri Suresh Chandra Tripathi R/o 14, Bank Road, Old Katra, Allahabad-211002 (UP) ....Applicants (Through Ms. Priyanka Bhardwaj for Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) Versus 1. Union of India, Through Secretary (Revenue), Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Chairman, 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. The Secretary Department of Personnel and Training Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi .Respondents (Through Shri Rajiv Kumar, Advocate) ORDER Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A):
The applicants have qualified in the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2006 conducted by respondent no.4 under `general category and were ranked in the merit list at position no. SLD/1019, SLD/1138, SLD/1145 and SLD/1014. Having qualified the examination of the post of Inspector, the applicants were asked to submit their option for allotment of zones. The zones were to be allotted as per preference given by the candidates, those having better marks were to be considered first as compared to those having lesser marks. The applicants state that if the respondents had gone by the principle of merit-cum-preference, the applicants would have got the zone of their first choice. However, they were allotted zones which were never their first choice. The applicants were issued appointment letters between September 2009 and October 2009 and they joined services without any delay between September 2009 and October 2009 itself. After joining they found that the respondents had not followed the principle of merit-cum-preference but in fact they followed a different criteria. What the respondents did was that those SC/ST/OBC candidates who qualified under `general standards were given their choice zone against unreserved vacancies having better merit. According to the applicants, once they were selected as `general category candidates, they could not have been treated as `reserved class and adjusted against reserved vacancies in choice zone. Moreover, after this exercise, some of the reserved category candidates who did not come under their own merit, were given zone of choice over and above the applicants who were much senior to them in the merit list. They had made representations and moved this Tribunal as well and in compliance of the order, the applicants cases have been considered and rejected by the order dated 3.07.2012. The applicants state that a similar matter had come up before this Tribunal in OA No.403/2013, Jai Prakash and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors., decided on 22.04.2014. It is claimed that this case is fully covered by the judgment in the aforesaid OA.
2. The respondents in their reply have stated that the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC recommended against unreserved vacancies were to be adjusted against reserved vacancies if by doing so, they could get the zone of their higher preference. Thereafter, the candidates recommended against the vacancies reserved for SC/ST/OBC, were to be allocated zones strictly by following the principle of merit-cum-preference. Since some SC/ST/OBC candidates recommended against unreserved vacancies would have got adjusted against reserved vacancies and some unreserved vacancies would have remained unallocated and equal number of SC/ST/OBC candidates would have remained without allocation of zone, these SC/ST/OBC candidates were allotted the zones against the vacancies remaining unallocated in unreserved category.
3. We find that this case is fully covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in OA 403/2013 (supra), in which the Tribunal observed as follows:
9. From the above circulars, one thing is crystal clear that those reserved category candidates who have qualified in `general category on their own merit but normally will not get choice category because of their merit position, can be given the choice category by adjusting them against reserved vacancies in that category. Basically the respondents have relied on this to state that no mistake has been committed. However, the applicants have raised a very specific issue which is that once the above principle is followed and as a consequence some unreserved vacancies arise, the department cannot pick up reserved candidates from down below in the merit list (who have not qualified on their own merit as `general candidates) and fill up unreserved vacancies giving them choice. In fact, from the following portion of the letter dated 2.08.2011, it appears that the department has done exactly that:
Consequently some reserved candidates at the bottom of list in respective category have been allocated against unreserved vacancy so as to match the total number of candidates recommended with the total number of vacancies available.
10. We feel that the department has clearly misunderstood the intent of the abovesaid two OMs and made a mistake. However, this Tribunal cannot go into the exercise of actually allocating zones as per the stated principles. The respondents are, therefore, directed to reconsider the representations of the applicants and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the receipt of a copy of this order. While passing the order, one thing which the respondents have to clearly keep in mind is that their policy as stated in the above circulars of 2010 and 2008 does not envisage that candidates at the bottom of the list in the respective category will be adjusted against unreserved vacancies in that category and doing that has been a mistake on their part.
4. Therefore, this OA is also disposed of by quashing the impugned order dated 3.07.2012. The respondents are directed to reconsider the representations of the applicants and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the receipt of a copy of this order. While passing the order, one thing which the respondents have to clearly keep in mind is that their policy does not envisage that candidates (reserved category candidates) at the bottom of the list in the respective category will be adjusted against unreserved vacancies in that category and doing that has been a mistake on their part.
( P.K. Basu ) ( G. George Paracken ) Member (A) Member (J) /dkm/