Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajiv Sindhu vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. Through on 7 May, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi O.A.No.1385/2012 Order Reserved on:24.04.2014 Order pronounced on 07.05.2014 Honble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Honble Shri P. K. Basu, Member (A) Rajiv Sindhu S/o Sh. Kapoor Singh R/o H.No.836/13, Street No.03 Balour Road Arya Nagar Bahadurgarh Distt. Jhajjar Haryana. Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. M.K.Bhardwaj) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. through The Chief Secretary Govt. of NCT of Delhi New Secretariat I.P.Estate New Delhi. The Secretary Delhi Subordinate Selection Board Institutional Area Karkardooma Complex Delhi. The Director General Delhi Fire Service, Cannaught Place New Delhi. The Chairman NDMC, Palika Kendra Cannaught Place New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate:Sh. Arun Bhardwaj through Sh. Shekhar Kumar for R-4 and Mrs. Renu George for other respondents) O R D E R By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):
The 2nd Respondent-Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, had advertised 18 vacancies (UR-09, OBC-05, SC-03 and ST-01) for selection to the post of Sub-Officer in Delhi Fire Services (Post Code No.52/2009) vide Advertisement No.03/2009 and also advertised 3 vacancies (UR-03) for selection to the post of Sub-Fire Officer in NDMC vide Advertisement No.04/2009.
2. The applicant, being qualified for both the aforesaid posts, has applied and participated in the common selection process conducted in respect of both the aforesaid advertisements, i.e., in Part-I (Objective) and Part-II (Descriptive) papers/examinations. The Part-II paper would be evaluated only when a candidate secured more than the required cut off marks in Part-I examination. When the respondents have not declared the applicant as `selected for evaluation of Part-II (Descriptive) paper/examination, filed the present OA.
3. It is submitted that as per the conditions mentioned in the Advertisement, the respondents were required to declare 10 times of the candidates successful in Part-I paper/examination, for evaluation of Part-II Paper. Though the respondents issued the list of qualified candidates to the extent of 10 times of the number of vacancies published, but they did so, without even examining whether the said candidates fulfilled the minimum eligibility conditions. And thereby the applicants rights are affected.
4. Per contra, the respondents vide their Counter and the Additional Affidavit, categorically stated that as per the terms and conditions laid down in the examination scheme, the minimum qualifying marks for short-listing the candidates on the basis of Part-I Examination is fixed as 40% for UR category, i.e., 40 marks out of 100 and 30% for reserved category, i.e., 30% out of 100, subject to the number of short-listed candidates being maximum of 6 to 10 times of the number of vacancies or the candidates available upto the same score/marks. As per the said condition and as there were more candidates available who secured same score/marks, the cut off marks for Un-Reserved category are fixed at 47 marks for Post Code No.52/2009 and 44 marks for Post Code No.76/2009. The applicant, an Un-reserved candidate, obtained 43 marks, out of 100, which is less than the required cut off marks in the Un-Reserved category, for both the posts, and hence, his name could not be short-listed for evaluation of his Part-II (Descriptive) paper/examination.
5. The respondents further stated that the applicant neither made any person, against whom he leveled allegations that he is not qualified, as party to the present OA nor made any proper and sufficient pleadings in this regard in the OA.
6. Heard Shri M.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Renu George and Shri Arun Bhardwaj through Sh. Shekhar Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, and have perused the pleadings on record, including the additional affidavit filed by the respondents on 22.04.2014.
7. Admittedly, the applicant has not secured the required cut off marks in his Part-I paper/examination to be eligible for evaluation of his Part-II paper/examination.
8. It is also not his case that if any particular person is declared unqualified, as contended by him, the applicant will become eligible for evaluation of Part-II paper/examination. There are number of persons, who secured more marks than the applicant, and less marks than the last selected unreserved category candidate, are available, even if certain persons are declared as unqualified.
9. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the OA and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(P. K. Basu) (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) /nsnrvak/