Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Arun Kumar vs M/O Finance on 1 November, 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
OA No.3851/2012
Order Reserved on: 29.10.2018
Pronounced on:01.11.2018
Hon'ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. S.N. Terdal, Member (J)
Arun Kumar Verma, son of Shri R.S. Verma,
Aged about 30 years, resident of C-247,
Mahesh Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
-Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Yatendra Sharma)
-Versus-
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board
of Excise and Customs, 9th Floor, Hudco Vishala,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman, Staff Selection Commission,
New Delhi.
3. Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs &
Service Tax Commissioner, Vadodara.
-Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.M. Arif and Shri Rajeev Kumar)
ORDER
Shri K.N.Shrivastava, Member (A):
Through the medium of this Original Application (OA), filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief:
"The original application filed by the applicant may kindly be allowed and order Annexure-A/1 may kindly be quashed and set aside. The directions may be issued to the respondents to give appointment to the applicant on the post of Inspector Central 2 (OA No.3851/2012) Excise in pursuance to the notice Annexure A/1. Further directions may be issued to the respondents to give all consequential benefits to the applicant."
2. The factual matrix of the case, as noticed from the records is as under:
2.1 Pursuant to the Annexure A-2 notice of Staff Selection Commission (SSC), inviting applications for Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE), 2008 the applicant submitted his application. The closing date for receiving applications was 02.05.2008. The notification also indicated that the written examination would be conducted on 27.07.2008. The applicant appeared in the written examination as a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate which he successfully cleared. Thereafter, he was called for interview vide Annexure A-4 letter dated 18.12.2009. He participated in the interview. The SSC declared the final result and uploaded it on its website. A print out of the final result qua the applicant is at Annexure A-3. On the basis of the final result, the applicant was recommended by SSC for appointment to the post of Inspector, Central Excise. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Vadodara-I vide his Annexure A-5 letter dated 16.11.2010, addressed to Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Jamnabai Government Hospital, Mandvi, Vadodara sent the applicant and other selected candidates for the post of Inspector, Central Excise for medical examination, who declared 3 (OA No.3851/2012) him medically unfit. Thereafter the applicant was referred to Specialists at M&J Institute of Ophthalmology Civil Hospital Campus, Ahmedabad for re-examination by a Board of Referees.
The said Institute vide its Annexure R-3 certificate dated 11.01.2011 declared him unfit. The respondent no.3 vide letter dated 03.10.2012 enquired from the said Institute the reasons for declaring the applicant medically unfit. In response to the said letter, the Director of the Institute vide its Annexure R-8 letter dated 14.05.2012 informed as under:
"I have carefully examined the relevant record of Shri Arun Kumar Verma Inspector for Central Excise Department. This candidate has been declared unfit because his left eye is having poor vision with eccentric fixation. The left eye poor vision is not likely to improve with any number of glasses or surgical operation. He also does not have binocular vision, so he is a one eyed person."
2.2 The respondent no.3 vide impugned Annexure A-1 letter dated 11.04.2011 has informed the applicant that he has been declared medically unfit by a Board of Referees of M&J Institute of Ophthalmology Civil Hospital Campus, Ahmedabad and accordingly his dossier is being returned to the SSC. The contents of this letter would read as under:
"Sub: Appointment to the grade of Inspector, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Vadodara Zone Vadodara. Please find enclosed herewith outward letter No.JHU/Medical/1968- 69/2011 dated 15.03.2011 of the Chief Medical Officer-Cum-Civil Surgeon. Vide the said letter the CMO has informed that you have been declared unfit for the post of Inspector by Board of Referee M&J Institute of Ophthalmology vide their letter F.NO. 4
(OA No.3851/2012) Eye/boardofrefree/Certificate/209/201 dated 03.03.2011, Certificate No.66A dated 11.01.2011.
As you have declared unfit by the medical board, your dossier is hereby returned to the Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region, New Delhi."
2.3 Aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-1 letter, the applicant has approached the Tribunal in the instant OA, praying for the relief as indicated in para-1 supra.
3. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply. On completion of the pleadings the case was taken up for hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on 29.10.2018. Arguments of Shri Yatendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri S.M. Arif, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Shri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for respondents no.1&3 were heard.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the SSC in its Annexure A-2 examination notice had prescribed physical standards in para-18 viz. physical tests (walking/cycling) height and chest and vision for the post of Inspector, Central Excise. It had also made clear that only those candidates who fulfil the above specified physical measurements (including vision test) would be eligible for the post of Sub Inspector in CBI. He thus argued that the physical standards prescribed therein are not to be applied to the candidates selected for the post of Inspector, Central Excise. 5
(OA No.3851/2012) 4.1 The learned counsel drew our attention to Annexure A-6 notification dated 29.11.2002 of Department of Revenue, Government of India, wherein physical standards for the post of Inspector, Central Excise has been prescribed as under:
"For male candidates:
(i) Physical standard (minimum):
Height:157.5 cms (relaxatbale by 5 cms in the case of Garhwalis, Assamese, Gorkhas and members of the Scheduled Tribes);
Chest: 81 cms (fully expanded with minimum expansion of 5 cms);
(ii) Physical Test:
Walking: 1600 metres in 15 minutes; Cycling: 8 km in 30 minutes;
For female candidates:
(i) Physical standard (minimum)
Height: 152 cms and
Weight:48 Kgs, (Height relaxable for 2.5 cms and weight relaxable bt 2 Kgs for Garhwalis, Assamese, Gorkhas and members of the Scheduled Tribes.
(ii) Physical test:
Walking: 1 Km in 20 minutes;
Cycling: 3 km in 25 minutes."
4.2 He vehemently argued that the disqualifications prescribed in the Annexure A-2 examination notice in respect of Inspector, Central Excise is in contravention of the physical standards/tests prescribed in the recruitment rules. Incidentally in the note in para- 3 (b) of the Annexure A-2 notification, it is stated as under:
"Visually Handicapped persons, Colour blind and one-eyed persons are not eligible for the posts of Inspector (Central Excise) (Preventive Officer) and Inspector (Examiner)."6
(OA No.3851/2012) 4.3 He further argued that no visual disqualification has been prescribed in the Annexure A-2 examination notice of SSC.
5. Shri S.M. Arif, learned counsel for respondent no.2-SSC submitted that respondent no.2 had already recommended the applicant for appointment to the post of Inspector, Central Excise, to respondents no.1&3. He further submitted that the applicant was fully aware of the terms of appointment notified in Annexure A- 2 examination notice.
6. Shri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents no.1&3 submitted that it was not correct on the part of the applicant to contend that no criteria for vision was provided in the examination notice and that the criteria prescribed was only for the post of Sub Inspector in CBI. He submitted that the examination notice in para-3 had clearly stipulated that Visually Handicapped persons, Colour blind and one-eyed persons were not eligible for the posts of Inspector (Central Excise) Preventive Officer and Inspector (Examiner). The learned counsel stated that it is not in dispute that the applicant is having poor vision in his left eye and as such he is not medically qualified for the post of Inspector, Central Excise.
7. Replying to the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents Shri Yatendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is not correct on the part of the 7 (OA No.3851/2012) respondents to hold that the applicant is one-eyed person. As a matter of fact, he is having vision in both the eyes albeit in his left eye his vision is 6/29. For declaring a person as one-eyed, vision in one of the eyes should be 6/60, which is not the case with the applicant.
8. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings and documents placed on record. It is not in dispute that the in the Annexure A-3 CGLE, 2008 notice, the respondent no.2 has clearly prescribed that Visually Handicapped persons, Colour blind and one-eyed persons would not be qualified for the post of Inspector (Central Excise). The Annexure A-2 also prescribed the physical standards. All the candidates who participated in the said examination were fully aware of these conditions. Therefore, it will be correct to hold that the applicant too was aware of these conditions. The respondent no.2 recommended the applicant to respondents 1&3 for appointment to the post of Inspector, Central Excise on the basis of his merit. Definitely, respondent no.2 was not aware of his eye vision nor was required to know at the time of making such recommendation. The medical examination conducted by the Board of Referees of M&J Institute of Ophthalmology Civil Hospital Campus, Ahmedabad has clearly established that the applicant is having poor vision with eccentric fixation in his left eye which is not 8 (OA No.3851/2012) likely to improve with any number of glasses or surgical operations. The Board has clearly established that he does not have binocular vision.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant has tried to convince us that 'Vision' is not prescribed as a 'Physical Standard' for the post of Inspector, Central Excise in terms of the recruitment rules for the post and according to him even a totally blind person would also be eligible for such appointment. We do not accept this argument. The candidates who appeared in the examination were fully aware of the 'Vision' and the 'Physical Standard' for the post of Inspector, Central Excise prescribed in the Annexure A-2 examination notice at the time of applying for the CGLE, 2008. Nothing can prevent the recruiting agency to prescribe some additional eligibility conditions over and above those prescribed in the recruitment rules for any post on the recommendation of the user department. Indisputably, the applicant is having very poor vision in his left eye. The learned counsel for the applicant has also confirmed it and has said that his vision in the left eye is 6/29. In view of it, we do not find any illegality in respondents no.1&3 holding that the applicant is not eligible for appointment to the post of Inspector, Central Excise.
10. In the conspectus of the discussions in the pre-paras, we do not find any merit in this OA and accordingly it is dismissed. 9
(OA No.3851/2012)
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.N. Terdal) (K.N. Shrivastava) Member (J) Member (A) 'San.'