Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Aashish Gupta vs M/O Finance on 27 January, 2025
1
Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019
Court No. V
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 3460/2019
This the 27th day of January, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Aashish Gupta
S/o Sh. Durga Prasad
R/o 328, Hauz Khas Apartments,
New Delhi - 110016
Aged about 32 years (aprox.)
(Group 'B')
(Inspector) ....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi
2. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
Through its Chairperson
North Block, New Delhi
3. The Principal Chief Commissioner,
Central GST (DZ)
Central Revenue Building
I.P.Estate, I.T.O New Delhi - 110002
4. The Chief Commissioner,
Central GST (Chandigarh Zone)
Central Revenue Building
Plot no. 19, Sector-17C, Chandigarh - 160017
5. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No. 12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S N Verma for Res. No. 1 to 4)
2
Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019
Court No. V
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) In the instant O.A. the applicant has prayed for the following relief:-
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24/09/2019 placed at Annexure A/1.
(b) Direct the respondents to forthwith re-allocate the applicant to Delhi zone at par with his batch mates who have been allocated Delhi zone despite their lower rank position;
(c) Accord all consequential benefits.
(d) Award interest@ 10% p.a. on the arrears.
(e) 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."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case learned counsel for the applicant would submit that initially the applicant had secured 255 rank in the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE), 2012 and was allocated Chandigarh zone insisted of Delhi zone. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that at the relevant point of time, allocation of zone was left in the hands of the recruiting agency, i.e., Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and the user department had no role to play in the said matter.
2.1 In the present O.A., the applicant has placed a challenge to the impugned order dated page 24.09.2019, which reads as under:-
3 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019Court No. V This Order is being passed in compliance of Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi Order dated 31.05.2019 in OA No. 1784/2019 filed by Shri Aashish Gupta.
2. Brief facts of the OA 2.1 The present OA No. 1784/2019has been filed by Shri Aashish Gupta, against his allocation to Chandigarh zone of CBEC (now CBIC) instead of Delhi Zone. He has represented that the candidates who were placed below him in the merit list, for the same examination, and, whose results were declared in January, 2018 have been allocated Delhi zone. The applicant has also submitted that his representation dated 29.04.2019 was not favourably considered by the CBIC.
2.2 Shri Aashish Gupta has sought the following reliefs in the OA mentioned above:-
"(a) Direct the respondents to forthwith re-
allocate the applicant to Delhi zone at par with his batch mates who have been allocated Delhi zone despite their lower rank position.
(b) Accord all consequential benefits.
(c) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the applicant."
3. The Hon'ble CAT (PB), New Delhi vide oral Order dated 31.05.2019 disposed of the O.A. at the admission stage itself, without going into the merits of the case with a direction to the respondents (ie. 1. The Chairperson, Central Board of Excise and Customs, North Block, New Delhi, 2. The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Zone, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 3. The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Zone, C.R. Building, Plot No. 19, Sector-17C, Delhi and 4. The Chairman, Staff Selection Commission, Block No. 12. CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi) "to consider the Annexure A/1 representation dated 29.04.2019 of the applicant and to pass appropriate reasoned and speaking orders thereon within ninety days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
4 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019Court No. V
4. The points raised by the applicant vide representation dated 29.04.2019 are summarized below:
(i) That, in the year 2013, SSC forwarded 25 dossiers of General Category candidates to the CBEC (now CBIC), which were forwarded to the Chief Commissioner of Delhi Zone for allocation of candidates between Delhi Zone and Chandigarh Zone on Merit-cum-preference basis. Accordingly, the Chief Commissioner, Delhi Zone had on their own, allocated 10 dossiers to Delhi Zone and 15 dossiers to Chandigarh, without taking the preferences of Zone from the candidates of CGLE 2012;
(ii) Further, 10 dossiers of General Category were received in the year 2018 of the additional result of SSC CGLE 2012, which were not allocated as per the criteria/procedure followed by the Delhi Zone of merit-cum-preference basis as in the year 2013 and retained all these 10 candidates in Delhi Zone. Due to this the candidates who are junior to him in merit have been allocated Delhi Zone.
(iii) Delhi Zone did not distribute 10 dossiers of Additional Result of CGLE 2012 received in 2018, proportionately between Delhi and Chandigarh on merit-cum-preference basis as followed in 2013.
Therefore, Delhi Zone had retained all these 10 dossiers with malafide intentions, and had not followed any guidelines/Rules. Due to this wrong done, candidates being junior to him in merit had got posting in Delhi Zone.
(iv) In view of above, his request for transfer of Zone from Chandigarh to Delhi may be considered against vacancies for the year 2012 as CBIC/Delhi Zone have posted candidates junior to him in Delhi Zone.
5. Discussion:
5.1 The representation has been examined in detail alongwith available records. It is observed that the representation dated 29.04.2019 has already been examined on 03.05.2019 in compliance with directions of the Hon'ble CAT in OA No. 1784/2019. On further examination of the above representation it was noticed that the facts narrated therein are similar to his previous representation dated 26.12.2018 except for the additional fact of allocation of zone of the successful candidate made of CGLE-2012 as a consequence of the Additional result declared by 5 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019 Court No. V SSC in compliance with the directions of the Apex court.
5.2 Notably, the issues raised by the applicant in the present representation have already been disputed before the Hon'ble CAT (PB), New Delhi. 5.2.1. Vide order dated 24.08.2015, the Hon'ble CAT (PB) New Delhi in OA No. 3299/2014 held as under:
"4. We have heard both sides and have perused the material on record. In our opinion, it is now well settled position that allocation of zones has to be done strictly on the basis of merit-cum-preference. From the pleadings of the rival parties, it is evident that this method has been followed by the respondents in allocating the zones. The applicant's contention that the zone allocation should have been on the basis of Pin Codes as advised by SSC, in our opinion cannot be accepted. In fact, we consider this direction of SSC to be wholly unnecessary. The allocation of zone is done by the appointing Ministry/Department and there was no need for SSC to advise the department to adhere to allocation on the basis of Pin Code. From the material placed on record, it is also clear that the respondents have not interfered with the States allocated by the SSC. In this case, SSC had clubbed the vacancies of Delhi and Chandigarh under Code preference "F"
and had forwarded all the dossiers to Delhi Zone. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have thereafter followed the system of allocating zones on the basis of merit-cumpreference. Thus, we notice that all the 10 candidates allocated to Delhi had given first preference as "F", which stands for Delhi. Some of them had given their second preference as "U", which stands for Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. We also notice that all the candidates allocated to Delhi have ranked higher than the applicant. Thus, there has been no violation of the principle of zone allocation on the basis of merit-cum- preference. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the action of respondents No. 1 to
3."[Para 4 of the Order dated 24.08.2015 refers] 5.2.2. The applicant preferred W.P. (C) No. 6154/2016 against the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble CAT (PB) New Delhi before the Hon'ble 6 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019 Court No. V High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 30.08.2016 held as under:
"The learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly urged before this Court that since the petitioner had no option to change the preference exercised in the application form, the same should also be binding on the respondents. In effect, that since the petitioner had given the option for Delhi, he should have been. posted in Delhi alone. The stand of the petitioner is neither borne out from the advertisement nor it is logically plausible. In the present case, there were only 10 vacancies available in Delhi. The respondents have filled up the vacancies in terms of the advertisement wherein the respondents were entitled to take into consideration the position of the candidate in the merit list and the option exercised for the post. The result of Delhi and Chandigarh zone has been extracted in para 10 above. The first 10 persons in the merit list have been accommodated in Delhi and we find no infirmity in the stand of the respondents. "[Para 13 of the Order dated 30.08.2016 refers] 5.3.1. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that CBIC (Board) vide its letter dated 16.09.2013 had conveyed the manner in which Inspectors (Central Excise) recommended for appointment of CGLE 2012 were to be appointed; Para 2 of the letter specifically states as under:
"This is to inform that the SSC has clubbed the vacancies of candidates to be posted in Chandigarh with Delhi Zone. The Cadre Controlling Authority, Delhi CX Zone is requested to kindly allocate the candidates on the basis of merit-cum-preference and forward the dossiers of the candidates to Chandigarh CX Zone. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Zone while allocating candidates to their respective jurisdiction will ensure that it is strictly based on merit-cum-preference. After allocation on merit-cum-preference, the detailed work sheet adopted by the CCs may be sent to CBEC immediately. A list of vacancies reported to SSC and candidates allocated to Delhi +Chandigarh (for Inspector Central Excise) is enclosed. If the candidates allocated are as per vacancies reported, then candidates will be allocated as per merit-cum-preference basis. Where candidates selected are less than the 7 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019 Court No. V vacancies reported then candidates have to be allocated proportionately, based on merit-cum-preference."
5.3.2. As mentioned above, the SSC had clubbed the vacancies of Delhi and Chandigarh under 'F' preference and forwarded the dossiers to CBEC (now CBIC) for onward allocation. Since allocation of the states had been already decided by the SSC, the CBEC (now CBIC) did not have any discretion to alter the zones so allocated by the SSC. It is also a matter of record that the preference for the allocation of zone was given by the applicant himself to the SSC at the time of recruitment under the CGLE 2012.
5.3.3. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the allocation of zones was correctly done by Delhi Zone in compliance with the criteria prescribed by the SSC.
5.4. The matter of allocation of Delhi zone for candidates covered in the CGLE 2012 (Additional Result), as referred to in para 5 of his representation, has also been examined. Notably the result of 94 candidates of CGLE 2012 examination was declared consequent to the dismissal of SLP No. 2836-2838/2017 and Review petition No. 2417-5419/2017. The SSC, after due diligence, declared the result of 94 withheld candidates of CGLE 2012 as the Additional Result. The Ad.IIIB section of CBEC (now CBIC) vide the letter dated 23.03.2018 SSC informed that State allocation of Inspectors (Central Excise/GST) whose result were declared on 30.05.2013 was made by the SSC itself. At this stage the CBEC or the zone had no discretionary power to allocate the zones to any of the candidates.
5.4.1. It is to place on record that the candidates of CGLE 2012, including Shri Aashish Gupta, whose results were declared on 30.05.2013, had been adjusted against the vacancies of 2012 by SSC. It is also a matter of record that result of the withheld candidates subsequent to the dismissal of SLP and Review petition was made by SSC from January, 2018 onwards; the appointment of these withheld candidates was made against existing vacancies of 2017/2018.
Para 3.5 of CBIC letter dated 02.08.2019 is as under:
"It is worth mentioning that these candidates have been adjusted against the vacancies of 2017/2018 (as the case may be) unlike other candidates whose result was declared in the year 2013. Moreover, CBIC has not allocated states to any of the Inspector (CGST) but it was SSC who not only allocated the states to all the Inspectors (CGST) selected through SSC 8 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019 Court No. V CGLE 2012 but also directed CBIC to forward the dossiers of the candidates to the zone allocated. Accordingly, Zonal allocation of with-held candidates allocated in the year 2018 (directed by the Court and allocated by SSC) cannot be kept at par with the candidates allocated initially in the year 2013."
5.5 In view of the above, while allocating the Zones to the with-held candidates, the dossiers of the candidates, who had been allocated zone by SSC, were forwarded to the concerned Zones. 5.6 From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the allocation with respect to the applicant made by the Delhi Zone was proper and in accordance with the prescribed criteria of SSC, as conveyed by the Board vide letter dated 16.09.2013."
2.2 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that revised results were published on 15.01.2018, which is apparent from the office order dated 15.01.2018, which reads as under:-
"Additional result of candidates of Combined Graduate Level Examination 2012 Staff Selection Commission had conducted Post Examination Analysis for candidates of CGLE 2012. Results of some of the candidates of the said Examination were withheld, their candidatures were cancelled and these candidates were debarred for a specified period from appearing in the future Examinations of the Commission.
2. Consequent upon dismissal of SLP No.2836- 2838/2017 vide its Order dated 19.07.2017 and dismissal of Review Petition No.2417-2419/2017 vide its Order dated 31.10.2017 by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ms.Sudesh Kumari, the Commission, after exercising due diligence, has now decided to declare the result of 286 such candidates of CGLE 2012 to whom relief have been granted by CAT/High Courts. Accordingly, details of the 286 candidates have been uploaded on the website of the Commission, i.e. http://www.ssc.nic.in.
3. In the case of some candidates, who have been granted benefit/relief by CAT/High Court, certain deficiencies have been observed in their documents which are being examined by the Commission. On 9 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019 Court No. V completion of the said verification, the Commission would declare their results also."
2.3 The sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the revised results were published on 1501.2018 and the candidates who had secured a lower rank than the applicant had been given the Delhi zone depriving the applicant herein and he is aggrieved of the same. Highlighting the same, he specifically points out that Sh. Ketan Rana, (Rank 259), Sh. Vinay Rathee (Rank 280), Sh. Dharmender Malik, (Rank 286), Sh. Gaurav Kumar Rana (Rank 299); and Sh. Yogendra Kumar (Rank 3221) have been allocated Delhi Zone. Learned counsel submits that in the said compelling circumstances the applicant moved a representation which has not been considered, thereafter the applicant filed O.A. No. 1784/2019, which was disposed of by this Tribunal by directing the respondents to take a holistic view in the matter and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the applicant. Pursuant to the said directions, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 24.09.2019, and aggrieved by the same, the applicant has preferred the present O.A. 10 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019 Court No. V
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 relies upon the following averments made in the counter affidavit:-
1. That CGST Delhi and Chandigarh Zones had intimated 29 and 46 (total 75) vacancies respectively for the Combined Graduate Level, 2012 examination being conducted by the SSC. The breakup of intimated vacancies was as under:
State Delhi 15 08 04 02 29 Chandigarh 22 14 07 03 46 Total 37 22 11 05 75 Pursuant to the CGLE Result declared on 30.05.2013 this Zone received 57 Dossiers vide Board's letter dated 16.09.2013 as per the following details:-
Categories UR OBC SC ST Total
NO. % NO. % NO. % NO. % NO. %
Received 25 67.5 18 81.8 10 90. 04 80 57 76
09
The Board vide its letter dated 16.09.2013 intimated that the SSC had clubbed the vacancies of CGST Delhi and Chandigarh zones under 'F' preference and had forwarded the dossiers to CBEC for onward allocation of zones. Accordingly, the dossiers of candidates who had opted for Delhi and Chandigarh zones were forwarded to Delhi ·Zone with directions to allocate them between the two cadre control zones on merit-cum-
preference basis. The Board further directed that in the event of the dossiers being lesser than the number of vacancies, allocation is to be done proportionately.
2. That In compliance with the Board's letter mentioned herein respondents allocated the dossiers by considering 'U' as preference for Chandigarh and 'F' as preference for 'Delhi' as advertised by the- SSC in Rojgar Samaachar dated 24.03.2012. Accordingly, the dossiers were allocated on merit-cum preference basis. The dossiers allocated to Delhi Zone for the General category were as under:-
Table-A Delhi UR Category Preference Sl. Name D.O.B. Categor Rank 1st 2nd No. y
1. VIKAS MALIK 02.10.86 UR 38 F U
2. DEEPAK 03.01.86 UR 99 F U NARWAL 11 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019 Court No. V
3. GAURAV 05.10.86 UR 108 F U SINGH
4. SANGEETA 11.10.88 UR 110 F U
5. RAJESH 02.12.86 UR 160 F U KUMAR (OBC) YADAV
6. MOHD WASIM 05.08.86 UR 164 F U
7. DEEPAK 30.10.88 UR 170 F U
8. SUMIT KUMAR 21.10.89 UR 189 F U (OBC)
9. YADU 22.03.87 UR 210 F U BHARDWAJ
10. DHARMENDE 20.02.90 UR 215 F V R
11. ASHISH 29.02.88 UR 224 F U CHAWLA * candidates at serial No. 5 & 8 were placed under General category as they were selected in General Category as per the Board's letter 16.09.2013.
Table-B Chandigarh UR Category Preference Sl. Name D.O.B. Categor Rank 1st 2nd No. y
1. MANOJ 14.05.89 UR 67 U F VERMA (OBC)
2. PRADEEP 02.07.88 UR 136 U F SHEORAN
3. NAVEEN 03.03.86 UR 187 U F JINDAL
4. NITIN KUMAR 27.09.89 UR 227 F U
5. KARAN 07.08.88 UR 247 U F VOHRA
6. RAGHU 15.04.89 UR 254 U F SHARMA
7. AASHISH 02.10.87 UR 255 F U GUPTA
8. LOKESH 28.12.90 UR 276 U F KUMAR
9. RAHUL JAIN 27.09.89 UR 317 F U
10. KULDEEP 19.12.91 UR 318 U F
11. SHALINI 21.11.90 UR 339 F U DUHAN
12. LAV BISHT 11.03.88 UR 343 F U
13. TAMANPREET 10.12.89 UR 346 U F SINGH
14. VIJAY KUMAR 04.10.85 UR 347 F U
15. BHUVNESH 21.12.87 UR 350 U F GUPTA
3. That the applicant Shri Aashish Gupta had already litigated the said matter of allocation in the Hon'ble CAT (PB) Delhi vide OA Nos. 3299/2014, in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6154/2016 and 12 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019 Court No. V in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide SLP (Civil)No. 2836-2838 of 2017. The plea of the applicant was rejected in Hon'ble CAT (PB) New Delhi vide Order dated 24.08.2015, in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Order dated 30.08.2016 and in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 23.02.2017.
4. That, further, in this OA, the applicant has raised the issue of the SSC CGLE 2012 (Additional Result) candidates by stating ·candidates junior to him in rank have been allotted Delhi Zone. The facts are that the CGLE 2012 (Additional Result) candidates joined Delhi Zone as per directions of the Board in its letter F. No. A.12034/SSC/02/2012-Ad.III(B) dated 10.04.2018 for the vacancy year 2018. The zone allocation of the candidates of the CGLE, 2012 (Additional Result)· was done by the SSC directly; Delhi zone had no role in the matter. The applicant of this Writ Petition(Civil) joined the Chandigarh Zone on the basis of the vacancy of the year 2012 as per the merit-cum-preference basis.
5. That the claim of the applicant that candidates Junior to him ·had joined Delhi Zone for the CGLE 2012 (Additional Result) exam has been evaluated. On detailed analysis, it has been observed that for the year 2012, there were 15 vacancies in the General category against which 11 dossiers had been received; out of these 11 dossiers 09 ·candidates in General category · · higher in the rank than the applicant joined Delhi zone as mentioned in Table-A, in the year 2013 & 2014. Further, out of the 10 General category Candidates of the CGLE 2012 (Additional Result), 06 candidates scored higher rank than the applicant detailed in Table- C. The vacancies of the General category for the year 2012 were filled before rank 255, as detailed in Table- B. The details of the CGLE 2012 (Additional Result) candidates who joined Delhi zone are as under:
Table-C CGLE 2012 (Additional Results) Sl. Roll No. Name Rank Category No. Selected
1. 2201112526 Vijay Panwar 53 UR
2. 2201050121 Manu Malik 98 UR
3. 2201077233 Amit Khatri 137 UR
4. 2201080926 Deepak Kumar 146 UR (OBC)
5. 2201514705 Sandeep Mann 158 UR
6. 2201073820 Naveen Saroha 245 UR
7. 2201560652 Ketan Rana 259 UR
8. 2201558350 Vinay Rathee 280 UR
9. 2201012594 Dharmender 286 UR Malik
10. 2201514975 Gaurav Kumar 299 UR Rana
11. 2201142515 Satydev 529 OBC
12. 2405017332 Rohit Kumar 610 OBC
13. 2201554303 Manjeet Kumar 766 OBC 13 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019 Court No. V
14. 2201524193 Shahidldrisha 2853 OBC (PH)
15. 2201036960 Yogendra 3221 UR (PH) Kumar Further, as per procedure the unfilled vacancies of the year 2012, which remained unfilled, are carried forward to the subsequent year in accordance with DOPT OM No. 22011/7/86-Estt(D) dated 03:07.1986 Para 2.4.2 as under:
"Para 2.4.2. . ............. The unfilled direct recruitment quota vacancies would, however, be carried forward and added to the corresponding direct recruitment vacancies of the next year (and to subsequent years where_ necessary)'for-taking action for direct recruitment for the total number according to· the usual practice. Thereafter in that year while seniority will be determined between dir(!ct ·recruits _ and promotees, to the extent of the number of vacancies for direct recruits and promotees as determined according to the quota for that year, the additional, direct recruits - selected against_ the carried forward vacancies of the previous year. would be placed en-bloc below the last promotee (or direct recruit as the case may be), in the seniority list based on the rotation of vacancies for that year. -The same principle holds good for determining seniority in the event of carry forward, if any, of direct recruitment or promotion quota vacancies (as the case may be) in the subsequent year."
Therefore, the unfilled vacancies of the year 2012 stood closed for that year itself. The candidates of the CGLE, 2012 (Additional Result) with whom the applicant is comparing himself _were selected for the vacancy of the- year 2018 and adjusted in the Seniority List of the Inspectors for the year of 2018."
3.1. Learned counsel would contend that the applicant had joined in the year 2014 and he was adjusted against the vacancy of the year 2012-13. At the relevant point of time there was nothing wrong in allocating him the Chandigarh zone. It is a matter of record that the candidates of CGLE 2012 including the applicant, whose results were declared on 30.05.2013 had been adjusted 14 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019 Court No. V against the vacancies of 2012 by SSC and result of the withheld candidates subsequent to dismissal of SLP and review petition was declared by SSC from January 2018 onwards; the appointment of these withheld candidates was made against existing vacancies of 2017-2018. It is pertinent to mention that these candidates had been adjusted against the vacancies of 2017-2018, unlike other candidates, whose results were declared in the year 2013. Learned counsel stated that it may be noted that merit cum preference method has been followed by respondents in allocating zones. Though the allocation of zone is normally done by appointing ministry/department, however in the instant case the appointing ministry / departments (respondent nos. 1 to
4) have not interfered with zone(state) allocated by SSC(respondent No. 5). It may be further noted that all the candidates who are allocated Delhi Zone have ranked higher than the applicant and, hence, there has been no violation of principle of merit cum preference in allocation of zone to the candidates including the applicant and hence there is no violation of any court's/tribunal's orders or any infirmity in the action of respondents in the allocation of zone to the applicant.
15 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019Court No. V 3.2. Learned counsel also states that the applicant belongs to unreserved category. As per merit of performance, the applicant was allocated the Chandigarh Zone. He would contend that at the relevant point of time no other candidate in identical situation in un-reserved category was allocated zone dehorse the Rule position.
3.3. Learned counsel would contend that pursuant to the additional result the candidates those who were selected in terms of the additional results were adjusted against the vacancies of the year 2017-18. However, it is not in dispute that these applicants were part of the selection process in CGL Examination, 2012.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records of the case, undisputedly the applicant stood in merit having rank of 255 at the relevant point of time. It is also not in dispute that various litigations have been preferred by the applicant, which did not find favour to the applicant.
Now, as an outcome of additional results of the candidates, who appeared in the CGL Examination, 2012, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there has been discrimination, as the persons who had obtained the lower rank than the applicant have been accorded Delhi Zone, whereas the 16 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019 Court No. V applicant is continuing in Chandigarh Zone. A specific stand has been taken by the respondents as pursuant to the additional results, 4 candidates namely Mr. Ketan Rana, Mr. Vinay Rathee, Mr. Dharmender Malik and Mr. Gaurav Kumar Rana have been adjusted against the vacancy of the year 2017-18, though they have participated in CGL Examination, 2012. We do not find any justification for adjusting the candidates of CGL Examination, 2012 for the vacancy in the year 2017-18.
Probably the adjustment would have been made due to administrative exigencies, however, the said fact could not deny the applicant of his rightful eligibility of allocation of zone, i.e., Delhi Zone as per his own merit.
4.1. We have already highlighted the fact that 4 candidates who have secured rank below the applicant, and who also belonged to un-reserved category have been allocated Delhi Zone. The applicant ought to have been given the same treatment, however, the same has not happened, which has not only resulted in-arbitrary exercise of power but also resulted in discriminatory treatment to the applicant. We also take note of the fact that Mr. Ketan Rana, Mr. Vinay Rathee and Mr. Dharmender Malik has also agitated their grievance before this Tribunal vide O.A. No. 757/2022, which was 17 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019 Court No. V decided by this Tribunal vide order dated 14.02.2023, and the following orders were passed therein:-
"2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the pleadings on record. We have given a fair reading to the above quoted order and compared it with the present OA. We are convinced of the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicants that both the OAs are strikingly similar in terms of the issue at stake. Therefore, we have no hesitation in allowing the present OA on the analogy of OA No. 341/2022. The impugned order dated 22.11.2022 is, accordingly, quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondents to fix the seniority of the applicants along with their batchmats, who got selected to the post by virtue of their success in CGLE -2012 examination. Pursuant to the grant of such seniority, the applicants shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, albeit on notional basis w.e.f the date of seniority as assigned. The directions shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and not later than 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
The said order was based on the earlier decision passed by this very same Bench in O.A. No. 341/2022 decided on 07.02.2023 titled as Shahid Idrisha & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., the relevant extract of the same is also reproduced herein below:-
"9. Accordingly, the respondents were to assign appropriate seniority also in accordance with rules. Moreover, we have gone through the impugned order as also the DoP&T circular being referred to by the respondents in the impugned communication. In fact, the primary reason being adduced and printed in bold as also underlined in the impugned communication is "Since no vacancy pertaining to the year 2012 is available for adjustment of these candidates, these candidates cannot be considered as belonging to 2012 vacancy year for purpose of determining their seniority."
10. Even the DoP&T circular says that the additional direct recruits as a general principle be placed en-block before the last of promotes based on rotation of vacancies of the particular year. This instant case does not fall within the purview of the said DoP&T circular.
18 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019Court No. V
11. The facts are not disputed. The applicants were participants in CGLE-2012 and finally got selected on merit of the CGLE-2012 examination and hence, all consequential benefits they are entitled to shall be with the reference to CGLE-2012 and identical to other candidates who participated in the said examination i.e. CGLE-2012. If their counterparts of the said examination have got seniority with effect from 2012, the present applicants are also held to be entitled to seniority with effect from that date.
12. In the light of this background, the OA is allowed and the impugned communication dated 22.11.2021 is set aside. The competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to pass an order giving appropriate seniority to the applicants with effect from the date therein batchmates who joined the services pursuant to CGLE-2012 have been given, strictly on notional basis.
13. As a consequence of these directions, the applicant shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, including, but not restricted to, promotion and re-fixation of salary and other allowances. However, they shall have no claim to the arrears of such financial benefits as the award of the same shall be on notional basis. These directions shall be complied within a period of 12 weeks' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
Further, it has been brought on record that the said order has also been implemented vide establishment order 96/2024 dated 22.08.2024.
4.2 In view of the same, the impugned order dated 24.09.2019 is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to place the applicant in Delhi Zone within a period of 30 days from the receipt of a certified copy of this order and appropriate seniority list be prepared alongwith his batchmates and consequential benefits accordingly shall also flow within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
19 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 3460/2019Court No. V
5. We make it clear that the relief sought in the present matter is confined to the applicant herein. This order shall not affect the rights of the persons already accorded the benefit of implementation order no.
96/2024.
6. We make it clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent in future as it is passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,
7. In view of the above, the present O.A. stands disposed of. Pending M.As, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/SG/