Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shyama Kumari vs Staff Selection Commission on 23 August, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi T.A. No.42/2010 (Civil Writ Petition No.14130/2009) This the 23rd day of August 2011 Honble Shri M. L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Smt. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) Shyama Kumari C/o Birndawan Singh A-73, Chandra Vihar Main Road, Mandwali Fazalpur New Delhi-92 ..Petitioner (By Advocate: Shri Manish Srivastava) Versus Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman Department of Personnel & Training Block No.2, Kendriya Karyalay Parisar Lodi Road, New Delhi-3 ..Respondent (By Advocate: Shri S M Arif) O R D E R
Shri M.L. Chauhan:
This case has been transferred by the High Court of Delhi to this Tribunal, as the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the matter. Earlier, the petitioner has filed writ petition, being Civil Writ Petition No.14130 of 2009, whereby he has sought the following reliefs:-
a) a writ, order, or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby declaring the final merit list dated 30.10.2008 prepared by the Respondent pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.08.2007 issued by the respondent calling for the applications for appointment of 1474 post as Tax Assistant in various commissionerate of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and Central Board of Excise and Customs (CEBC) as null and void and be quashed and;
b) a writ, order, or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondent, its officials, servants etc. to prepare a new merit list including petitioner and to appoint the Petitioner as Tax Assistant in Central Board of Excise and Customs (CEBC) as the Petitioner has obtained more marks than the last selected candidate and;
c) award the costs of present proceedings in favour of Petitioner and against the respondent.
Pass such other writ, order or directions to the parties in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner applied in Tax Assistant Examination, 2007 under unreserved (hearing handicapped) category. The scheme of examination stipulates that examination consisted of two parts viz. written examination and skill test on computer. The case projected by the petitioner is that she submitted her application along with HH certificate under disabled category hearing handicapped persons with first preference to Central Board of Excise & Customs. The written examination was held on 25.11.2007. The petitioner was declared successful. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to appear for skill/computer test held on 17.7.2008. The result of the skill examination was declared on 30.10.2008 but the name of the petitioner was not included in the merit list. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter she sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the information received by her under Right to Information Act as Annexure P-3 page 29 of the paper book, whereby the marks obtained by the last candidate in various categories have been mentioned, which is to the following effect:-
Category UR OBC SC ST EXS OH HH VH CBDT 227 218 203 192 168 204 178 197 CBEC 219 212 194 166 154 201 153 166
3. Admittedly, the petitioner has obtained 162 marks in the examination. The grievance of the petitioner is that in this case since she has obtained 162 marks in the examination and the last candidate selected under HH category has obtained 153 marks, as such she ought to have been selected for the post in question under the category of CBEC. Thus, according to the petitioner, the action of the respondents in not offering her a letter of appointment is arbitrary. It is on the basis of these facts the petitioner has filed the present case.
4. Notice of this application was given to the respondents. The respondents have filed their reply affidavit wherein it has been stated that at the time of written examination, the petitioner has indicated her category in OMR sheet as UR+OH and her result was also declared according to her preference given for OH category. The respondents have further stated that she was allowed to appear in skill test in the category as UR+OH and since she has not qualified the skill test in UR+OH category, she was not given offer of appointment.
5. The respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner at the time of written examination has coded her category as UR+OH, therefore, the result of the written paper in respect of the petitioner was processed in that category only. The respondents have further contended that when the written result was published, it was clearly mentioned that the category status in respect of candidates belonging to reserved candidates has been indicated along with their roll number. The respondents in paragraph (C) of the reply have stated that it is important for such candidate for whom certain percentage of vacancies are reserved as per policy of the Government to note that the some of them might have been declared qualified for the skill test in the category mentioned against their roll number. If any candidate does not actually belong to the category mentioned against his/her roll number he/she may not be eligible to be called for the skill test. It is, therefore, in the interest of candidates concerned to contact immediately the respective Regional Office of the Commission in all such cases where they do not belong to the category shown against their roll number.
6. The respondents have further stated that despite this warning, the petitioner kept quite even after seeing her result, which was declared in UR+OH category, which according to the petitioner was not her actual category. The respondents have submitted that even the admit card was for skill test in the UR+OH category as per result of written examination. Thus, according to the respondents, it is not open for the petitioner to now contend that she should be considered under the category UR (HH).
7. The petitioner has filed rejoinder, thereby reiterating the submissions made in the petition. The petitioner has stated that no option for UR (HH) category was there in the OMR sheet and the examiner informed her that OH/VH/HH are under PH only and asked the petitioner to fill category as PH, which was the only category for physically handicapped persons. Thus, according to the petitioner, on the advice of the examiner, she mentioned her category as UR (PH) on OMR sheet, as there was no option as UR (HH).
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondents has produced one document under the subject Tax Assistant Examination 2007 for data verification of (NR). In this document, the name of the petitioner finds mention at Sl.No.205 bearing roll No.1212272 with date of birth as 8.3.1979. The category 1 has been shown as 9 and under the heading category 3 against the name of the petitioner, 4 has been mentioned. This document has been signed by the candidates, including the petitioner.
10. If one has regard to the advertisement (Annexure P-1) under the heading Instructions for filling up the Application Form for general category/unreserved, code 9 has been mentioned, whereas under the heading Physically Handicapped, Status for Orthopaedically Handicapped code 4 is mentioned and for Hearing Handicapped code 5 is mentioned, and for Visually Handicapped code 7 is mentioned. Admittedly, the petitioner in the aforesaid advertisement has mentioned code as 9 being general category candidate and code 4 being OH instead of filling code 5, as admittedly the petitioner belongs to HH category.
11. It is not disputed that the petitioner has made any protest regarding declaration of the written examination result under this category and issuing of the admit card for skill test under this category. Thus, the case of the petitioner was considered by the respondents in the category of OH. In the said category, the last candidate selected for the post in CBDT has acquired 204 marks, whereas for the post in CBEC, such candidate has acquired 201 marks. Admittedly, the petitioner could not have been selected, as she has acquired 162 marks. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
12. That apart the petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this stage for yet another ground. The result of the Tax Assistant Examination, 2007 was declared in the year 2008 and the offer of appointment has been given to the persons, who had been selected pursuant to such examination. The petitioner has not impleaded the last candidate, who was selected under the category HH and obtained 153 marks. In case the relief is granted to the petitioner, it will adversely affect such person, who has been selected. Thus, even on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the OA is found bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
( Smt. Manjulika Gautam ) ( M.L. Chauhan )
Member (A) Member (J)
/sunil/