Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Overage in Vijay Nath Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors. on 19 December, 2014Matching Fragments
1. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 1.3.2012 & 23.3.2012, whereby his candidature for the post of Sub-Inspector in BSF was cancelled and was discharged from service on the ground that he was overage for the said post as on the cut off date of 04.07.2008.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). He joined the Special Protection Group (Cabinet Secretariat) as an SA on deputation from 17.4.2006 and was also extended the benefits of ACP w.e.f. 26.3.2008. While on deputation, he took the examination for the post _______________________________________________________________________ of Sub-Inspector in Central Police Organizations (CPOs), 2008, conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). He was given an offer of appointment to the BSF in April, 2010 and was required to report to the BSF Academy, Tekanpur, Gwalior, M.P. on 24.5.2010 for undergoing the basic training. However, subsequently it was discovered that he was overage for the said post. As per Rules, the age of entry to the post of Sub-Inspectors in the BSF for persons serving in Central Police Organisations is 20-25 years, which is relaxed by 5 years for Central Govt. employees and by another three years for persons belonging to the OBC category. Therefore, the maximum age for a person of the OBC category was 33 years whereas the petitioner an OBC candidate was 35 years, 11 months 14 days old as on the cut off date of 4.7.2008. Accordingly, his candidature was rejected.
8. Under Column 19 of the application his B, C, A, D, E _______________________________________________________________________ preferences for Organization/Service: 1st,2nd,3rd,4th,5th B-CISF, C-CRPF, A-BSF, D-ITBP and E-
SSB
9. For preference B(CISF) & C (CRPF), he scored less than cut off marks prescribed for the two preferences
10. For preference A (BSF), D (ITBP) & E (SSB) he was overage Order of Eligible in Age preferences B-CISF 35+3 (Departmental OBC)=38 years Yes C-CRPF 25+5+3(Maximum+CGCE+OBC)=33 years No A-BSF 25+5+3(Maximum+CGCE+OBC)=33 years No D-ITBP 25+5+3(Maximum+CGCE+OBC)=33 years No E-SSB 25+5+3(Maximum+CGCE+OBC)=33 years No
7. We note that the petitioner had listed his preferences for different CPOs (Civil Police Organization). He did not qualify for his first two preferences i.e. the CISF and the CRPF since he was low in the _______________________________________________________________________ order of merit. However, in April, 2010, he was allocated to the BSF by the respondents in order of merit. An order was issued by the Special Protection Group (SPG) where he was then serving, putting him at the disposal of his parent department i.e. the CISF with effect from 1st December, 2011 for duty and further orders. The CISF accepted his technical resignation of 22nd May, 2010 and on the 24th of that month, he was enrolled with the BSF with his past service benefits. He had almost completed the basic training when on 8th April, 2011 he was verbally stopped from continuing it. He made representations against the said stopping of training, which finally resulted in cancellation of his candidature by the Staff Selection Commission on 1.3.2012. This Court notes that the petitioner did not conceal his age from the Staff Selection Commission for the Central Police Organization Examination, 2008 for recruitment of Sub- Inspector. The examination form was filled up as per the format. His age was disclosed as it was without concealing anything relevant. A separate calculation was not required to be provided by the candidate, in accordance with the preferences given for allocation of the different CPOs; which would have been in order of merit. If the petitioner had scored the requisite marks for the CISF or the CRPF, _______________________________________________________________________ he would have got into either of the services because he met the age criteria for those forces. However, he qualified for the BSF as per his merit. Subsequently he was found to be disqualified because of being overage. This calculation of overage was done at a much later stage by the Staff Selection Commission i.e. almost one year after he had been issued an offer of appointment for the BSF, and was placed on probation period of two years from that date till the impugned order of 9.4.2011. The petitioner was regarded and conducted himself as a Sub-Inspector in the BSF. It was a paradigm shift in his personal, family and social status, from his previous station in life as that of a constable. The shock and mental agony which the petitioner would have undergone is understandable and cannot be condoned when the basic training was almost completed, he was suddenly stopped from continuing further. The lack of diligence in processing the petitioner's case is entirely the fault of the Staff Selection Commission/respondent No.2; such action cannot be condoned because it resulted in the present litigation, involving unnecessary costs and agony to the petitioner. He would need to be compensated for the same.