Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rohit vs Govt. Of Nctd on 7 July, 2023
1 OA No.1646/2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
OA No.1646/2017
Order reserved on: 19.05.2023
Order pronounced on: 07.07.2023
Hon'ble Mr.Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
1. Rohit
S/o Shri Jai Babu,
R/o B-70, Asha Park, Hari Nagar,
Jail Road, Delhi-110058.
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Karan Singh)
Versus
1. Government of National Capital Territory
Through Secretary,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110002.
2. Planning Department for the Government of
National Capital Territory of Delhi,
Through its Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002.
3. Chairman,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110002.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand)
2 OA No.1646/2017
ORDER
By Hon'ble Manish Garg, Member (J) In the present OA, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Set aside the impugned rejection Notice dated 24.01.2017 (and any other Order issued with respect to or in pursuance of the same) issued by Respondent No.1 with regards to Applicant and his eligibility for the post applied for;
(ii) Direct Respondent No.1 to declare the Applicant as a successful candidate for the post applied for by the Applicant;
(iii) Direct the Respondents to duly appoint the Applicant to the post of statistical assistant with all consequential and due benefits; including benefits of seniority;
(iv) Direct the Respondents to do the above in time bound manner;
(v) Direct the Respondents to bear costs for the instant Application;
(vi) Filing of certified copies of annexures may kindly be dispensed with."
2. Briefly stated the facts as enumerated by learned counsel for the applicant are as follows:
2.1 In pursuance to the advertisement No.01/2014 issued by respondents, thereby inviting applications from eligible candidates for the 135 vacancies for the post of Statistical Assistant, applicant applied for the said post. The minimum qualification required for the post of Statistical Assistant, according to the advertisement, was to have passed a paper in 'Statistics' at the graduate level. The cutoff date for applying 3 OA No.1646/2017 for the vacancies under the aforesaid advertisement was 27.02.2014.
2.2 The applicant was eligible for the said post since he had the requisite qualification and was under 30 years of age.
Further, the application process was online and he had been issued admit card for the examination.
2.3 On 01.10.2014 an addendum to the above advertisement was issued by respondent no.1 increasing the vacancies for the post of Statistical Assistant from 135 to 247. The respondents conducted the tier one examination for the said post on 28.06.2015. The applicant was declared successful in the examination and obtained higher position in the merit against a general category, instead of reserved seats quota. He was second most meritorious candidates based on the results of the examination conduct. He was thus called for submission and verification of his documents on 08.03.2016 in the office of respondent no.1. 2.4 However, the respondent no.1 published Notice dated 23.02.2016 declaring the selected candidates for the post of Statistical Assistant, which includes the name of applicant. It is pertinent to point out here that a batch mate of the applicant Mr. Shiv Shakti who was also amongst the selected candidates share the same university, same year of 4 OA No.1646/2017 graduation and had also completed the same course. The said Mr. Shiv Shakti, though was found meritorious for the post, had significantly lower marks than the applicant. 2.5 Accordingly, the applicant appeared in the office of respondent no.1 on 08.03.2016 for verification of his documents and to complete other required formalities. The only niggle that the respondent no.1 enquired from the applicant that they were unable to pin subject code to subject in the applicant's graduation mark sheet. It is relevant to point out here that applicant was unable to clear his post graduation in the year 2008-2009 and had to appear in supplementary papers in two subjects.
2.6 The applicant, however, cleared these papers in the year 2009-2010 as his mark sheet reflects the same. Further, in the year 2009-2010, the applicant had needed his mark sheet to apply for various other employment opportunities. With this in mind, he could not wait for the computerized mark sheet to be declared by the University. Thus, he applied for and obtained a hand filled mark sheet for the year 2010. It is clear from this mark-sheet that all the marks between the 2008-2009 mark sheet and the 2009-2010 mark sheet are the same except for the subject of 'I-Computer programming and Numerical Methods' and 'VII-Industrial Statistics'. The applicant has also obtained a duplicate computerized mark 5 OA No.1646/2017 sheet from the University of Delhi to further buttress the genuineness of the hand filled mark sheet issued by the University.
2.6 The respondent no.1, however, on 02.05.2016 issued the notice bearing final result wherein, to the utter shock of the applicant, his name was not figured in the list of candidates who had been selected for the appointment. It is relevant to note that Mr. Shiv Shakti's name did appear on the list. The said notice bearing the final result figured the name of the applicant on the last page under the heading 'List of Absentee/pending candidates'. Such candidates were given an opportunity till 10.05.2016 to appear before respondent no.1 and clarify/fulfill any requirement.
2.7 The applicant accordingly appeared before respondent no.1 on 10.05.2016 and got his documents re-verified, and was once again assured by the officers of respondent no.1 that he had completed all formalities. Thereafter, shockingly applicant came to know that Mr. Shiv Shakti had received an offer of appointment to the post of Statistical Assistant with the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. 2.8 Upon hearing about offer letters being sent based on the recommendations of respondent no.1, the applicant ran from pillar to post trying to know the reasons as to why his 6 OA No.1646/2017 candidature had been rejected by respondent no.1 but to no avail. Finally, on 24.01.2017, when the applicant had re- verified his documents on 10.05.2016 the rejection notice featured his name as a rejected candidate with the remarks "as he has submitted post graduation degree in applied operation research, against education requirement of PG in operation research." It is pointed out that the impugned rejection notice dated 24.01.2017 is based on the fact that applicant does not hold the required qualification, as required by the advertisement. Hence, the OA.
3. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply, thereby vehemently opposing the contentions of the applicant. It is submitted that DSSSB had advertised for inviting applications for the post of Statistical Assistant under Post Code 66/14 vide advertisement no.01/14 for 135 vacancies (UR-51, OBC-39, SC-18, ST-27, PH-2, HH-1 and VH-01). Thereafter an Addendum dated 01.10.2014 was issued to the above advertisement by the Board thereby increasing the vacancies for the above mentioned post to 247.
3.1 The applicant herein had applied for the above mentioned post under SC category and he appeared in the written examination held on 28.06.2015. He was directed to appear in Board's office vide Public Notice dated 23.02.2016 7 OA No.1646/2017 for verification and submission of documents. The applicant did not submit the PG mark sheet during verification of documents, hence vide result notice dated 02.05.2016 the candidature of the applicant was kept pending due to requirement of his PG mark sheet. His candidature was, however, rejected with the remarks that "as he has submitted the Post Graduation Degree in Applied Operational Research against education requirement of PG in Operational Research"
vide rejection notice no.533 dated 24.01.2017, which cannot be found fault with.
3.2 In support of their pleas the respondents have relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan CV and others v. Union of India and Others, Civil Appeal No.7188 of 2013, decided on 28.03.2023, where the identical claim of the petitioners therein was rejected. It is submitted that the case of the applicant herein is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision and this OA is liable to be dismissed, being devoid of merit.
4. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the pleadings on record. Analysis:
5. Prima facie, the contention of the applicant is found to be forceful to the effect that a batch-mate of the applicant Mr. 8 OA No.1646/2017 Shiv Shakti who was also amongst the selected candidates shares the same university, same year of graduation and had also completed the same course. The said Mr. Shiv Shakti, though was found meritorious for the post, had secured significantly lower marks than the applicant. However in given facts, applicant was unable to clear his post graduation in the year 2008-09 and had to appear in supplementary papers in two subjects. Hence, on closing date of application, the applicant had not completed the said course even though rejection cannot be construed for valid reasons.
Conclusion:
7. Hence, the OA is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Manish Garg) (Tarun Shridhar) Member (J) Member (A) 'SD'