Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Bhupender vs Staff Selection Commission on 11 April, 2022
1 O.A. No.365 of 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.365
365 of 2015
Orders reserved on : 05.04.2022
Orders pronounced on ::11.04.2022
.2022
Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Shri Bhupender
S/o Shri Raj Kumar
R/o House No.646/A
Ajay Nagar,
Rewari Haryana.
... Applicant
(through Advocate Ms. Meenu Mainee
Mainee)
Versus
us
Union of India : Through
1. Regional Director (N.R.)
Staff Selection Commission
CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
... Respondent
(through Advocate Shri Gyanendra Singh
Singh)
2 OA No.365 of 20915
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the final result dated 20.10.2014 (Annexure A-1) for selection to the post of Multi Task (Non-Technical) Staff (hereinafter 'MT(N-T)S'). The applicant has also alleged that the applicant, who applied as a Scheduled Caste category candidate for the said post, though secured higher marks, however, the Scheduled Caste category candidate, who had secured lesser marks, were given appointments to the said post, ignoring the claim of the applicant.
2. In the present OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"8.1 That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to allow this applicant and direct the Respondent to include the name of the applicant in the selected list and after having placed his name in the select list grant all consequential benefits.
8.2 That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to give any other further relief as deem fit under the circumstances of the case.
8.3 That the cost of these proceedings may kindly be granted to the Applicant."3 OA No.365 of 20915
3. Pursuant to notice, the respondent has entered appearance. The respondent has filed reply and has prayed for dismissal of the OA. The applicant has filed rejoinder and has reiterated his grounds and prayers as made in the OA.
4. The brief facts, which are not disputed, are that pursuant to notice for recruitment to the posts of MT(N- T)S in different States and Union Territories - 2014 published in the EMPLOYMENT NEWS/ROZGAR SAMACHAR dated 16.11.2013. The applicant applied for the said post as a Scheduled Caste category candidate against the vacancy of Delhi (Code-11). The selection process consisted of written examination, i.e., Paper-I (Objective Type) and Paper-II (Descriptive Type-Qualifying Nature). The date of birth of the applicant is 12.3.1988. As per para 4 (A) of the aforesaid notice for recruitment, the prescribed age limit is 18-25 years, as on 01.01.2014, i.e., he/she must have born not earlier than 02.01.1989 and not later than 01.01.1996 for unreserved category candidate(s). Age relaxation is provided beyond the upper age limit upto 5 years for SC/ST categories candidate(s) as per the provisions of Para 4(B) of the said notice. Para 4 4 OA No.365 of 20915 (C) of the said notice provides that "Candidate who wish to be considered against vacancies reserved or seek age- relaxation must submit requisite certificate from the competent authority issued on or before the prescribed date in the prescribed format whenever such certificates are sought by the Regional/Sub-Regional Office. Otherwise their claim for SC/ST/OBC/PH/ExS status will not be entertained and their candidature/applications will be considered under General (UR) category." The applicant secured 115.50 marks in Paper I and 46 marks in Paper II. As per write-up, marks obtained in Paper-I by last selected candidates for SC category for selection in Delhi (Code-11) is 116.50.
5. Ms. Mainee, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that nine candidates, belonging to SC category who have secured less marks, have been selected against the unreserved quota. However, the applicant, who had admittedly secured more marks than these nine candidates, has been ignored in the final result and in the matter of appointment.
6. Shri Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel, with the assistance of the submissions made in the counter reply, has vehemently argued that the last candidate selected in 5 OA No.365 of 20915 the SC category in Delhi (Code-11) has secured 116.50 marks whereas the applicant has secured lesser than that and, therefore, the applicant has rightly not been selected under the SC category. Moreover, as the applicant was found over-age, he got the benefit of age relaxation in view of he being from SC community/category and once he has got the benefit of age relaxation, he has rightly not been considered against the vacancy(ies) meant for unreserved category. He has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 4.7.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.5185/2019, titled Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana vs. Gujarat Public Service Commission and others.
7. We have perused the pleadings on record and we have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the applicant has applied for the aforesaid post in Delhi (Code-11) and has secured 115.50 marks. The last candidate selected for the said post in Delhi (Code-11) has secured 116.50 marks. No person having lesser marks than the applicant has been selected by the respondents for the post under reference in Delhi under SC category. Now the only issue arises as to whether the applicant, who 6 OA No.365 of 20915 has availed age relaxation to be eligible to participate in the aforesaid selection, is entitled to be considered against unreserved vacancies also or not.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana (supra) had an occasion to consider the aforesaid issue, the relevant paras of the said Judgment read as follows:-
"2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether a candidate who has availed of an age relaxation in a selection Signature Not Verified process as a result of belonging to a reserved category, can thereafter seek to be accommodated in/or migrated to the general category seat?"
"8. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 11.06.2015 allowed the application in the following terms:
"The action of considering the
meritorious reserved category
candidates (who secured their position in general/open category on account of their performance) in their respective reserved category only because they availed benefit of "concession" which cannot be considered as "relaxation in merits" also set aside since it is found to be contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra)."
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, GPSC filed Letters Patent Appeal praying for setting aside of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court 7 OA No.365 of 20915 by order dated 15.03.2017 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge as under:
"Keeping in view the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court discussed hereinabove and in view of the discussion made by us in the aforesaid paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the State of Gujarat has framed the reservation policy by Government Resolution dated 11.2.1986 and circulars dated 29.1.2000 and 23.7.2004 as well as in view of the statutory provisions i.e. Recruitment Rules of 1967, Rules of 2007, 2008 and 2009, we hold that all those candidates belonging to a reserved category, if they avail the benefit of age relaxation, the same is to be considered as relaxation in the standard and therefore such candidates who got the benefit of age relaxation are not entitled to be considered in general category and their cases are required to be considered for reserved category cases only. Thus, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case and the relaxation of age in view of the policy of the State Government can be said to be relaxation in standard and the same cannot be considered to be concession. We answer the question posed for consideration accordingly."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering their own various judgments ruled in para 36 that "the age relaxation granted to the candidates belonging to SC/ST and SEBC category in the instant case is an incident of 8 OA No.365 of 20915 reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India." and dismissed the said Civil Appeal vide judgment dated 4.7.2019.
9. In view of the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana (supra), we are of the considered view that the issue involved in the present OA is no more res integra. We also find that though the applicant has challenge the entire result dated 20.10.2014 (Annexure A-1) on the ground that the candidates belonging to the same category, i.e., SC category having secured less marks than him have been selected and he has been ignored, however, the applicant has not impleaded any of such candidate(s) in the present OA, even in representative capacity and thus the OA is bad also for non-joinder of necessary parties.
10. In view of the aforesaid, we find that OA deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(R.N. Singh) (A.K. Bishnoi) Member (J) Member (A) /ravi/