Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Deepak Yadav vs Staff Selection Commission on 9 October, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI OA NO.4457/2013 NEW DELHI THIS THE 9th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014 HONBLE MR. ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER (A) HONBLE MR. RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER (J) Deepak Yadav S/o Sh. Arun Kumar R/o V & PO Masani, Distt. Rewari (Haryana). Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman Northern Region Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. Commissioner of Police PHQ, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) :ORDER: SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER (A):
The applicant in this OA is aggrieved by the Physical Endurance Test (PET) result dated 12.10.2013 by which he has been disqualified on the ground of not meeting the minimum prescribed standards of height and chest measurement, and because of which he stands excluded from the Delhi Police Sub-Inspectors Recruitment-2013.
A copy of the impugned PET result dated 12.10.2013 is at Annexure-A/1 which relates to the applicant. The same is signed by the Commandant, 38 (Bn.) B.S.F.
2. The following reliefs have been sought in this OA:-
(a) quash and set aside the impugned decision placed at Annexure A/1 whereby the applicant has been declared disqualified in physical standards and
(b) direct the respondents to get the applicant examined towards physical measurement in height and chest by a fresh and independent medical Board at any Govt. Hospital like AIIMS and
(c) direct the respondents to further consider the applicant for the post of Sub-Inspector (Ex) and appoint him to the said post with all consequential benefits.
(d) award costs of the proceedings and
(e) pass any other order/direction which this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. According to the facts of the case, the applicant had applied for the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police in response to employment notification issued by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in March 2013. A copy of the advertisement notifying the vacancies is at Annexure-A/2 on the following subject:-
Recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in Delhi Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub-Inspector in CISF and Intelligence Officer in NCB Examination, 2013.
4. Counter reply has been filed by Respondent no.1, i.e. SSC in which in paras 9, 10 and 11 the following has been stated:-
9. That this Honble Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present O.A. as the applicant herein is aggrieved by the action of the Commandant of BSF, who had conducted the PET/PST and Medical Examination on behalf of CPOs.
10. That the Commission/Respondent No.2 herein has no role in conduct of PET/PST and Medical Examination as the same are the sole responsibility of the coordinating CPO.
11. That from the above, it is clear that the present O.A. is bereft of any merit and the same is liable to be rejected with costs both on merits as well as on the point of jurisdiction.
5. In the counter reply filed on behalf of Respondent no.2 it is stated that the SSC advertisement relating to the vacancies along with corrigendum relates to the posts of SI in Delhi Police, SI in CAPFs, ASI in CISF and IO in NCB Examination, 2013. It is also mentioned that the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test was got conducted by the SSC through the CAPFs authorities.
6. The matter was heard on preliminary objection raised by the counsel for respondent-SSC to the effect that since it was a combined notification for recruitment for the posts of Sub-Inspectors in Delhi Police, CAPFs, CISF and IO etc., the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction in the matter and, therefore, the OA cannot be admitted. Respondents counsel Mr. S.M. Arif referred to the judgment of this Tribunal dated 04.09.2014 in OA No.145/2014 along with other OAs in which in paras 14 and 15 the Tribunal observed that since the SSC has conducted common written examination and other tests including medical examination for the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police and Intelligence Officer in Narcotics Control Bureau along with other posts in Armed Forces, hence, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the OAs. A copy of the said judgment was produced by the respondents counsel. Learned counsel argued that since the present OA also relates to a combined advertisement, the OA cannot be admitted for want of jurisdiction.
On the other hand, learned counsel for applicant argued that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction because the applicant was concerned with his selection in Delhi Police for which the Tribunal was competent to adjudicate.
7. We have perused the judgment of the Tribunal dated 04.09.2014 in OA No.145/2014 along with connected matters. From the facts in that case, it appears that respondent-SSC had invited applications for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police and CAPFs, ASI in CISF and IO in NCB in which the applicant has been disqualified in the medical examination during PET. In that matter also, similar objection had been raised by Respondent no.1, i.e. SSC and the issue was discussed and decided in those set of OAs. Paras 14 to 16 of the order in that OA are reproduced below:-
14. It is, therefore, clear that this Tribunal has consistently been taking the view that disputes relating to recruitment to posts in the armed forces are outside its jurisdiction in view of the statutory bar contained in Section 2(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In the instant case, as per the recruitment notice (Annexure A/2), the SSC has conducted common written examination, physical endurance test, medical examination and interview/personality test not only for the posts of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and Intelligence Officer in Narcotics Control Bureau but also for other posts in armed forces as already indicated above. Therefore, in our considered view, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the O.As.
15. In the light of the above discussions, we hold that the O.As are not maintainable before this Tribunal and are thus liable to be rejected. The applicants, if so advised, may approach appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance, if any.
16. Accordingly, the O.As are rejected. The interim orders passed by the Tribunal in the O.As automatically stand vacated. The Registry shall keep the original order in the case file of OA No.145 of 2014 and certified copy thereof in each of the case files of OA Nos.146,195,234,296,302,379 and 2049 of 2014. No costs.
8. In view of the aforenoted judgment of the Tribunal, we are of the view that since the facts and issues in the present OA are similar to that in OA No.145/2014 and other connected OAs, the same decision of the Tribunal shall be applicable in this OA as well. In effect, therefore, this OA cannot be entertained and decided for want of jurisdiction. OA is accordingly rejected. Applicant, if so advised, may approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Ashok Kumar) Member (J) Member (A) /jk/