Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mr. Vikash vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 February, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 1839/2013 New Delhi this the 28th day of February, 2014 Honble Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) Honble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J) Mr. Vikash, S/o Shri Raj Kumar VPO Igrah, Tehsil & District Jind, Haryana, present in Delhi. Applicant (By Advocate Ms.Mamta Pannikar for Ms. Jasvinder Kaur) VERSUS 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Commissioner of Police, MSO Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Recruitment), Recruitment Cell, New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate Shri Vijay Pandita ) O R D E R Honble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J):
The Delhi Police invited applications from Indian nationals to fill up the vacancies of ASI (Stenographer) and Head Constable (Ministerial) in the pay scales of Rs.9300-34800/- + grade pay Rs.4200/- and Rs.5200-20200/- + grade pay Rs.2400 plus other allowances as admissible. The details of the vacancies are mentioned hereinbelow:-
Sl.No. Name of post No of vacancies Pay scale
UR OBC SC ST Total
1. ASI (Stenographer) English 05 06 04 03 18 PB-2 Rs. 9300-
34800/- + Grade
Hindi - - - 02 02 Pay Rs.4200/- &
other allowances as
admissible.
[
2. Head Constable
(Ministerial) 255 142 66 36 499 PB-1 Rs. 5200-
20200/ -+ Grade
Pay Rs.2400/- & other allowances as
admissible.
OA 1839/2013
2. The applicant applied for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial). Being successful in physical endurance test, he was called to appear in written test held on 5.02.2012 at PTS Jharoda Kalan. Having qualified the written examination, he participated in the typing test in English language at PCTI, Pitampura on 27.11.2012 followed by computer (formatting) test on 05.02.2013. The result of the selection was declared in March 2013. The name of the applicant was not amongst the selected candidates. Thus, he filed the present OA, praying therein:-
Relief Sought: In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances this Honble Tribunal may be pleased to grant the relief (s) prayed hereinbelow:-
Direct the Respondents to consider and appoint the applicant to the post of Head Constable (Min.) as he has scored the cut off marks and as such eligible for appointment; May pass such other further orders/directions deem fit and proper in the facts of the case in favour of the applicant and against the respondents. In the Original Application filed by him, applicant has pleaded:-
(i). There was no short listing criteria suggested in the selection process.
(ii). Short listing could be done only at the time of accepting the applications and not in the middle of selection process.
(iii). No minimum marks could be prescribed for the interview, at least in the middle of selection process.
Nevertheless, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant did not press any of the aforementioned grounds and only submitted that when the applicant had secured same marks as the last selected candidates, i.e. 92 marks, there was no justification to not include his name in the select list.
OA 1839/20133. In the counter reply filed on behalf of respondents, it is explained that all the candidates were required to undergo physical endurance and measurement test (PE&MT) (qualifying nature), written test-100 marks, typing test-25 marks and Computer (formatting test) (qualifying nature). All the eligible candidates were called to attend physical endurance and measurement test. The candidates who qualified the PE&MT were called for the written test. As per para 15 of the Standing Order No. 324/2009, the candidates falling within the range of merit of written test equal to five times the number of vacancies in each category i.e. UR, OBC, SC, ST and ex-servicemen, were called for appearing in the typing test on Computer. All such candidates who got cut off marks were called for typing test. 2551 candidates qualified in the written test, were called to participate in the typing test on computer. 705 candidates qualified typing test and were called for Computer (formatting test). In the Computer (formatting) test, 549 candidates qualified. The final result was prepared (category-wise and merit-wise) on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the written test and typing test. As per rules/instructions and para 22 of the Standing Order, in case of equal marks obtained by candidates, their merit was fixed as per date of birth. There were 230 vacancies for open/un-reserved category and 230 candidates were selected. The marks of last selected candidate/cut off marks under UR category was 92. As per the merit, five candidates who secured 92 marks were selected, while the number of candidates who secured same marks was 25. The applicant secured 74 marks in the written test and 18 marks in typing test. He qualified physical endurance and computer (formatting) test. Since in OA 1839/2013 accordance with the rules and standing order on the subject, in case of merit being same, the candidate older in age was to get preference, the respondents could not offer appointment to applicant.
4. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. We have seen that in the Standing Order No.Rec.12, it is specifically provided that where equal marks have been obtained by candidates, their merit will be fixed as per their date of birth and the older candidate will be given preference and in case the date of birth is also the same, marks in the written test would decide the same. Thus, we find no infirmity in the stand taken by respondents in giving appointment to older candidates. For easy reference, para 22 of the Standing Order is extracted hereinbelow:-
22. Final list of successful candidates. The final list of successful candidates (as per the number of vacancies advertised (category-wise) strictly as per merit shall be declared after completion of medical examination and police verification. Where equal marks have been obtained by candidates their merit will be fixed as per date of birth. The older candidate will be given preference and in case the date of birth is also the same, marks in the written test would decide the merit.
Cases of selected candidates against whom any criminal case is registered/pending investigation/pending trial in the court, will be kept pending till the finalization of the same and their cases will be decided on merit after finalization of cases. As regards the cases of departmental selected candidates against whom any DE/PE/Crl. case/Vigilance Enquiry etc. is pending will also be kept pending till the finalization of the same and their cases will be decided on merits after finalization of cases. We may also make a reference to Rule 22 of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, wherein it is provided that seniority in the rank of upper and lower subordinate should be initially reckoned from the date of first appointment and the seniority of direct recruits in all ranks except Sub-Inspector (Executive) as a OA 1839/2013 result of same examination/selection should be reckoned by the order of merit determined by the Selection Board and in case no order of merit is indicated by the age of candidates, the oldest being placed senior-most and the youngest the junior-most. For easy reference, Rule 22 is extracted hereinbelow:-
22. Seniority in the rank of upper and lower subordinate shall be initially reckoned from the date of first appointment, and officer of subordinate rank promoted from a lower rank being considered senior to persons appointed direct to the same rank on the same day. The seniority of direct recruits in all ranks except Sub-Inspectors (Executive) appointed as a result of some examination or selection shall be reckoned by the order of merit determined by the Selection Board and in case no order of merit is indicated by the age of candidates, the oldest being placed senior-most and the youngest the junior-most. The inter-seniority of directly recruited Sub-Inspectors (Ex.) shall be fixed, on the basis of total of marks obtained by them in the Staff Selection Commission Examination/Interview as well as in the final examination held at Police Training School/College.
5. In view of the aforementioned rule position, we are of the considered view that the OA is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. No costs.
( A.K.Bhardwaj ) ( Sudhir Kumar) Member (J) Member (A) sk