Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Tarun Gupta vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 26 March, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.3032/2009 New Delhi this the 26th day of March, 2010. Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Tarun Gupta, S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, aged about 26 years, R/o A-8/29, Sector17, Rohini, Delhi-110089. -Applicants (By Advocate Shri Rama Duggal) -Versus- 1. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092. 2. The Secretary, Services Department, Govt. NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretarial, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002. -Respondents (By Advocate Ms. Renu George) O R D E R Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J):
Non-appointment on the post of Grade-II, DASS is the grievance of the applicant. Appointment with all consequential benefits to the aforesaid post is the relief claimed.
2. Applicant, pursuant upon Post Code No.59/06 issued by Services Department of Government of NCT of Delhi, applied for the post of Grade-II, DASS under sports quota, having represented the States of Jharkhand and Jammu & Kashmir in handball for which certificates were appended with the application form. Applicant qualified parts-I and II examinations under general category of sports quota. Applicant secured 159 marks out of 400 marks. For 11 vacancies in sports quota the last candidate who was selected secured 157.75 marks out of 400 marks. Though the final result was declared on 11.2.2008, applicants name was not figured therein. He preferred an appeal before the DSSSB, whereby it has been found that there has been sorting errors for which result of applicant was not declared. However, the result notice was issued on 21.8.2008 in continuation of earlier result where the name of applicant was not found, which led to series of information under RTI and ultimately it has been found that non-submission of the sports certificate in a proforma and non-authentication resulted in non-appointment of applicant.
3. Learned counsel of applicant states that there is no requirement of giving residence etc. in sports certificate, yet by virtue of DSSSB verification of sports certificate a communication by Handball Federation of India, including residence of applicant, authenticated all these sports certificates. Denial of appointment to the applicant and withholding it is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Renu George, learned counsel appearing for DSSSB states that whereas the proforma for sports certificate, includes residence, which the applicant has not given, accordingly on clarification the case was referred to the Services Department vide communication dated 22.5.2009.
5. However, the Services Department moved an MA, wherein they have stated that they have nothing to do with the case of applicant and had requested DSSSB to defend the interest of Services Department. It is stated that the letters written to the Handball Federation of India regarding giving exact recommendation regarding participation is yet to be responded.
6. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, as we find on record that the Sports certificates of the applicant have been authenticated and the fact that applicant secured more marks than the last sports candidate has been denied appointment without any reasonable basis and justifiable reasons. As such, denial of appointment cannot be countenanced in the wake of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, OA is allowed. Respondents are directed to offer appointment to the applicant on the post of Grade-II, DASS with all consequences, as admissible in law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (Shanker Raju) Member (A) Member (J) San.