Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Darpan Sharma vs Staff Selection Commission on 11 September, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA-3179/2015
Order Reserved on 07.09.2015
Order Pronounced on: 11.09.2015
Hon'ble Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
1. Darpan Sharma
S/o. Shri Virendra Kumar Sharma,
R/o. F-3/955, Raj Nagar, Loni Border,
Ghaziabad (U.P.) - 201 102.
2. Sagar Jawla
S/o. Shri Pradeep Kumar,
R/o. Vill+Post-Butrara,
Tehsil-Shamli, Distt-Shamli (U.P)
Aged about 20 years
3. Rama Kumari
D/o. Shri Gajendra Singh,
R/o. 70, Ganga Green City, Ganga Nagar,
Merrut (U.P.)-250 001.
Aged about 27 years
4. Sunil
S/o. Shri Tejpal Singh
R/o. Vill + Post-Katha,
Dist. Baghpat - 250 609.
Aged about 20 years.
5. Manish Kumar
S/o. Shri Ranveer Singh
R/o. Vill - Bandpur, Post- Khekra,
Dist. - Baghpat (U.P) - 250 101.
Aged about 20 years.
6. Lalit Kumar
S/o. Shri Bijender Singh
R/o. Vill - Sankroud, Post-Khekra,
Dist. - Baghpat (U.P) - 250 101.
Aged about 26 years.
7. Sohanvir Singh
S/o. Harpal Singh
R/o.Vill + Post, Sankroud,
Khekra, Baghpat (U.P) - 250 101.
Aged about 23 years.
OA No.3179/2015
2
8. Nitin Punia
S/o. Shri Birendra Singh
R/o. VPO Sarurpur Khur,
Teh - Sardhana Distt - Meerut (U.P)-250 344.
Aged about 20 years.
9. Amit Kumar
S/o. Shri Kishanpal
R/o.Baraut Road Ward No.13
Near Allahabad Bank Baghpat (U.P)-250 609
Aged about 23 years
10. Ankur Panwar
S/o. Shri Rajendra Singh Panwar
R/o.VPO Nala Teh - Budhana
Muzaffar Nagar (U.P) - 247 771.
Aged about 21 years.
11. Rahul Kumar
S/o. Shri Vijendra Singh,
R/o. Chaudhary Niwas
Near Gupta General Store Milan Vihar,
Delhi Road Moradabad (U.P)-244 001.
Aged about 27 years
12. Amit Kumar
S/o. Shri Jaivindra Singh
R/o. Vill - Khedki Khader Post - Gajraula
Teh-Dhanaura Amroha (U.P) - 244 235.
Aged about 24 years.
13. Kalyan Singh
S/o. Shri Nihal Singh
R/o. VPO Paigamberpur URF Shahpur
Post Deorhi URF Hadipur Distt - Amroha
Aged about 24 years.
14. Chanda Rani
D/o. Shri Bali Singh
R/o. Vill - Dabhawali PO-Dundawal
T-Nagar, Bharatpur Rajasthan - 321 205.
Aged about 28 years.
15. Kripal Singh
S/o. Shri Bijender Singh,
R/o. Vill - Sihaul Post - Sihual
T-Palwal (HR) - 121 102
Aged about 27 years.
OA No.3179/2015
3
16. Ashu Chaudhary
S/o. Shri Omprakash Chaudhary
R/o. N-1/1, Police Station Quarters Police Colony
Model Town-1, Delhi 09
Aged about 23 years
(Candidates towards Combined Higher
Secondary Level Exam-2014)
....Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
Staff Selection Commission (Hqrs.)
Through its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
Near Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium,
New Delhi - 110 003.
....Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Hanu Bhaskar )
O R D E R on Interim Relief
Per Sudhir Kumar, Member (A):
When notices were issued in this O.A., learned counsel for the applicants had pressed for grant of Interim Relief on 26.08.2015. The case was accordingly listed first on 01.09.2015, then on 03.09.2015, and finally on 07.09.2015, when arguments on the point of Interim Relief were heard.
2. The 16 applicants of this O.A. had taken the Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) Examination-2014 held by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC, in short). As per the Notification for the said Examination published in the Employment News/Rozgar Samachar dated 19.07.2014 (Annexure A-3), it was prescribed that the examination OA No.3179/2015 4 will comprise of a written objective type Examination, followed by Data Entry Skill Test/Typing Test. The applicants are not contesting that in the Note-IV below Para-8 Scheme of Examination, the Commission had reserved the right to introduce additional stages of examination to be notified later at a suitable time, if considered necessary, by stating as follows:-
"Note-IV: Commission reserves the right to introduce additional stage of examination which would be notified at suitable time, if considered necessary".
3. All the applicants appeared at the first stage of a written objective type examination. Thereafter, when the respondents published the Addendum Notification dated 20.04.2015 (Annexure A-1), they also took the descriptive type examination, as notified through the Addendum, which stated as follows:-
"ADDENDUM F. No. 3/2/2014 - P&P - 1 (Pt.) : As per Notice of the Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) Examination 2014 published on 19.07.2014. Paragraph 8 (Scheme of Examination) Note - IV, "Commission reserves the right to introduce additional stage of examination which would be notified at suitable time, If considered necessary". Accordingly vide Para 3 of the Notice uploaded on Commission's website on 15.01.2015. It was notified that an additional descriptive type examination (Qualifying in nature) would be held subsequently.
The Commission has decided to hold the stage two of the above Examination on 10.05.2015 (AN), for those candidates who have been shortlisted based on their performance in the written examination already held, result of which was published on 17.04.2015.
The above paper will be of descriptive type, broadly covering the syllabus already notified in the original notice published on 19.07.2014 and qualifying in nature. It will consist of the following four components of 50 marks each:-OA No.3179/2015 5
a) English Language -50 marks
(including Essay and Letter Writing)
b) General Intelligence and Reasoning -50 marks
c) Quantitative Aptitude -50 marks
d) General Awareness -50 marks
The duration of the examination will be of 2 hours. VH candidates will be allowed 2 hrs 40 minutes.
Under Secretary (P&P) 20.04.2015"
(Emphasis supplied)
3. The grievance of the present applicants is that though the respondents could have prescribed such an Examination, as per the instructions as contained in Para-8 (B) of the original Notification regarding Skill Test for Data Entry Operator (DEO, in short), but the newly introduced additional descriptive type examination could not have been held to be qualifying in nature, since the original advertisement had stated otherwise, as follows:-
"The "Data Entry Speed" Skill Test would be of qualifying nature. Candidates allowed to take this test, will have to qualify the test at the prescribed speed on Computer, to be provided by the Commission or the agency authorized by the Commission to conduct such skill test at the Centre/venue so notified.
Only these candidates who secure at least the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination, as may be fixed by the Commission at its discretion, will be called for skill test. The Commission may also at its discretion, fix qualifying marks in each component of the written examination".
4. It has so happened that after the applicants and numerous others had appeared at this additional descriptive type examination, termed to OA No.3179/2015 6 be qualifying in nature, without laying a challenge to the same, the respondents have since used the marks obtained in that later additional descriptive type examination (qualifying in nature) as the cut-off marks for Data Entry Skill Test for DEOs, instead of the prescription as was contained in the original Notification as reproduced in Para-3 above. Through this, while different cut off marks have been prescribed in respect of various categories, in respect of the Un-reserved category, to which the applicants belong, the cut off marks has been prescribed as 111 in the descriptive type examination (qualifying in nature).
5. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that if the intention of the respondents was to prescribe the cut-off marks, such intention should have been reflected in the original Notification itself, alongwith the cut-off marks being indicated, and introduction of a fresh set of cut- off marks, in order to short-list the candidates who would qualify to appear at the Data Entry Skill Test for DEO post, had worked to their disadvantage, as they did not have advance notice of any such cut-off marks being applied, and the Rules of the game have been changed after the game had begun. He advanced elaborate arguments that introduction of such cut-off marks, as had been done by the respondents through Annexure A-2 dated 16.07.2015, was contradictory to the Scheme of Examination, as had been notified earlier. The applicants had, therefore, prayed for the following reliefs and Interim Relief:-
"8. Reliefs:-
a) Quash and set aside the stage two examination and the results thereof for the Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) Examination-2014 and OA No.3179/2015 7
b) Direct the respondent/SSC to proceed further with the selection process on the basis of performance of candidates in the written examination (multiple choice objective type) as notified in the advertisement and prepare the select list accordingly and further consider the applicants for appointment, with all consequential benefits.
c) award costs of the proceedings and
d) pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble
Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicants and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case".
9. Interim Relief:-
Pending decision in OA, this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to stay the further process of selection or in the alternate, direct the respondents to allow the applicants to participate in the ongoing skill test provisionally".
6. Learned counsel for the applicants emphasized on the prayer for Interim Relief, and submitted that either the Tribunal should stay the further process of selection itself, or, in the alternative, direct the respondents to allow the applicants to participate in the ongoing skill test provisionally, even though, as per his own admission, the applicants had failed to secure the cut-off marks 111 in the additional descriptive type examination (qualifying in nature) notified on 20.04.2015 (Annexure A-1).
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, first raised the issue of jurisdiction, and said that the OA as filed presently, itself did not lie, and could not be adjudicated at the Principal Bench, when in Para-18 of the original Notification as contained in the Employment News Notice dated 19.07.2014, it had been prescribed as follows:-OA No.3179/2015 8
"18. Courts Jurisdiction Any dispute in regard to this recruitment will be subject to court/tribunals having jurisdiction over the place of concerned Regional/Sub-Regional Office of the SSC where the candidate has submitted his/her application".
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this prescription has to be read with the prescription at Sl. No.7 regarding Centre of Examination in which it had been stated as follows:-
"7. Centre of Examination A candidate must carefully indicate the centre in the Application Form in respect of the Examination. A candidate must submit his/her application only to the concerned Regional/Sub Regional Office of the Commission under whose jurisdiction the Centre selected by him/her falls. Application received in any other Regional/Sub Regional Office of the Commission will be rejected summarily.
The applications should be addressed to the Regional/Sub-Regional Offices of the Commission as indicated in the table below:-
xxx xxx xxxx(Table not reproduced here)."
9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the 16 applicants of this OA cannot even be allowed to join together in filing this OA, since applicants No. 1 to 13 belong to Western U.P., and as per Para- 18 of the Employment News Notification, the jurisdiction for any cases of the present nature filed by them would lie before the Allahabad or Lucknow Benches of this Tribunal, as the case may be, and that the applicant No.14 belongs to Rajasthan, and would have even submitted her application at the Centre situated in Rajasthan, applicant No.15 belongs to Haryana, and would have submitted his application in the OA No.3179/2015 9 appropriate Examination Centre at Haryana, and only Applicant No.16 was residing at Delhi, and would have submitted his application at the Examination Centre situated at Delhi.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents also pointed out that in respect of Meerut Centre, the Regional Director (CR) of the SSC at Allahabad was the place where the applications had to be received, which must have been the case in the case of the applicants No. 1 to 13, and applicant No.14 & 16 would have filed their applications with Regional Director (NR) of the SSC at CGO Complex, New Delhi, while the applicant No.15 belongs to Haryana, and would have come under the jurisdiction of Deputy Director (NWR) of the SSC at Chandigarh. He also made a submission that after the applicants had not laid any challenge to the Notification dated 20.04.2015 regarding the additional descriptive type examination (qualifying in nature) to be held by the respondents, as per the Scheme given in Annexure A-1, and all of them had taken that examination, once they were not successful in the said examination, they could not be allowed to lay a challenge to the Scheme of Examination, as per the settled case law in this regard. He also submitted that there is no distinction between the cut-off marks and qualifying marks, when the applicants were aware through Annexure A-1 dated 20.04.2015 that the additional descriptive type examination would be qualifying in nature, and it was obvious that the result of that additional descriptive type examination would alone have determined the number of candidates who had qualified for appearing at the Data Entry Skill Test for DEOs. OA No.3179/2015 10
11. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that no partiality or favouritism had been shown in regard to any categories, and the cut-off marks impugned at Annexure A-2 have been decided in accordance with the number of candidates who would qualify to take the Data Entry Skill Test for DEOs, in proportion to the number of vacancies in respect of the concerned categories.
12. Heard. We have given our anxious consideration to the prayer for grant of Interim Relief. It is trite law that the prayer for grant of Interim Relief has to be entertained if all of the following three conditions are satisfied:-
i) The applicants should be able to make out a prima-facie case for grant of such Interim Relief;
ii) The balance of convenience in the case should lie in favour of the grant of Interim Relief, rather than against the grant of Interim Relief; and,
iii) There may be likelihood of irreparable harm being caused to the applicants if Interim Relief is denied to the applicants.
13. In this case, any interference by this Tribunal at this stage with the cut-off marks as prescribed through Annexure A-2 would only introduce a flood of other candidates to become eligible for taking the Skill Test for the post of DEOs, and this Tribunal also does not have the required expertise to meddle with the cut-off marks as prescribed by the respondents presently, in order to arrive at a figure of qualified candidates, in proportion to the number of posts in each category.
14. The applicants have not even disclosed as to how many marks they have obtained, and how much below the relevant cut-off marks of 111 OA No.3179/2015 11 they are placed. Therefore, even if we leave the point of jurisdiction etc. to be decided when the OA is finally decided, we find ourselves unable to accede to the prayer for grant of Interim Relief in the instant case, as any such cut-off marks would certainly not have been beyond the comprehension of the applicants when they took the additional descriptive type examination (qualifying in nature) as notified through Annexure A-1 dated 20.04.2015.
15. Therefore, since we find that all the three pre-requisite conditions for grant of Interim Relief are not sa0tisfied in the instant case, the prayer for grant of Interim Relief cannot be granted the applicants at this stage, and the prayer is declined.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Sudhir Kumar) Member (J) Member (A) cc.