Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. In his rejoinder reply, the applicant, while reiterating more or less the same averments and contentions as in his O.A., has controverted the stand taken by the respondents. It is contended by the applicant that the Data Entry Skill Test was for the non-interview post of Tax Assistant. As no option was given by him for the non-interview post of Tax Assistant, he did not appear in the Data Entry Skill Test. Along with rejoinder reply, the applicant has filed a copy of the detailed option which is claimed to have been submitted by him online.
6.9 By the letter dated 4.11.2011, ibid, which is reproduced by us in paragraph 6.4 above, the applicant was required to present himself for submission and verification of documents on 26.12.2011. He was also required to submit the detailed option for posts, and duly filled in attestation forms, and to appear in the Data Entry Skill Test on 26.12.2011. Had he not indicated his preference(s) for the post of Tax Assistant in CBEC/Tax Assistant in CBDT, along with other non-interview posts, in the application form, he would not have been called upon to appear for appearing in the Data Entry Skill Test on 26.12.2011. It is not the case of the applicant that he did not indicate his preference(s) for the post of Tax Assistant in CBDT/Tax Assistant in CBEC, along with other non-interview posts, in the application form. It is the admitted case of the applicant that he did not appear in the Data Entry Skill Test on 26.12.2011.
6.10 On a perusal of the detailed options for posts, as reproduced in paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 above, which were claimed to have been submitted by the applicant physically on 26.12.2011 and online, we have found that the preferences/options indicated by the applicant in the said detailed options were different.
6.10.1 In the detailed option for posts, which is claimed to have been physically submitted by the applicant on 26.12.2011 at the time of verification of documents, he indicated his preferences for posts under OA 2565/12 15 Vikash v. SSC Codes P, R, Q, S, T, U,V, W, H, I, J, K,L, A, B, F, G and N, as 1st to 18th preferences respectively. The Codes V and W stood for the post of Tax Assistant in CBDT, and the post of Tax Assistant in CBEC, respectively. If at all the applicant submitted the detailed option for posts, which included the posts of Tax Assistant in CBDT, and Tax Assistant in CBEC, his plea that he was not required to appear in the Data Entry Skill Test is untenable, because for the said two posts, Data Entry Skill Test was prescribed. 6.10.2 In the other detailed option for posts, which is claimed to have been submitted by the applicant online, he indicated his preferences for posts under Codes P, Q, R, S, T and U, as his 1st to 5th preferences respectively. Even if it is assumed for a moment that the applicant submitted the said detailed option online, as per the instructions issued by SSC, he was required to send a copy of the online detailed option for posts detailed option to SSC and also to submit a copy of the same on 26.12.2011 when he was called upon to present himself for submission and verification of documents and also to appear in the Data Entry Skill Test. It is not the case of the applicant that he sent a copy of the online detailed option for posts to SSC and also submitted a copy of the same at the time of verification of his documents on 26.12.2011. Besides, if the applicant thought that since he did not opt for the post of Tax Assistant in CBEC/Tax Assistant in CBDT, for which Data Entry Skill Test was not prescribed, and he was, therefore, not required to appear in the Data Entry Skill Test on 26.12.2011, he ought to have indicated so in writing and approached the representatives of SSC in the OA 2565/12 16 Vikash v. SSC matter, but he appears not to have done so. Furthermore, it has nowhere been stated by the applicant in his pleadings that at the time of verification of documents, he submitted the attestation forms in triplicate in terms of the letter dated 4.11.2011, ibid.
9. From the order dated 20.6.2012 (Annexure A/2) issued by SSC, it transpires that the final result for interview and non-interview posts was declared on 30.3.2012. Representations were invited from the candidates regarding discrepancies in their result, if any. SSC received 300 representations from the candidates. After considering such representations, SSC summarily rejected 131 representations, as per List-I indicated in the order dated 20.6.2012, which included the representation of the applicant, vide sl.no.48. SSC rejected the applicant's representation 'as no documentary evidence for submission of Options' was available. We have already considered the respective pleas of the applicant and SSC with regard to the detailed option for posts, submission and verification of documents, submission of attestation forms, and Data Entry Skill Test, and have found that the applicant has failed to establish his plea that he had presented himself for submission and verification of documents, including detailed option for posts, and attestation forms, on 26.12.2011. We have also found that the as per the scheme of CGLE-2011, the applicant's candidature could not have been considered further as he did not appear in the Data Entry Skill Test and also failed to comply with other requirements. Therefore, we have OA 2565/12 19 Vikash v. SSC found no substance in the contention of Mr. N.K.Chahar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, that non-mention of the applicant's absence on 26.12.2011 for the aforesaid purposes as a ground of rejection of his representation in the order dated 20.6.2012 (Annexure A/2) belies the plea taken by the respondent-SSC before this Tribunal.