Delhi High Court
Prodip Kumar Mondal vs Union Of India & Anr. on 6 October, 2009
Author: A. K. Pathak
HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11941/2009
Judgment reserved on: 24th September, 2009
% Judgment delivered on: 6th October, 2009
PRODIP KUMAR MONDAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sahrawat, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Gautam, Adv. for
Resp. 1
Mr. Naresh Kaushik with
Ms. Aditi Gupta & Ms. Amita
Chaudhary, Advs. for UPSC.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
A.K. PATHAK, J.
1. Vide order dated 21st May, 2009, the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) dismissed the Original
Application No. 1433/2007 of the Petitioner. Aggrieved by
this order, Petitioner has filed this writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution praying therein that the
impugned order of the Tribunal be set aside and O.A. be
allowed.
2. Factual matrix of the case, as emerges from the record,
indicate that the Petitioner joined as a Direct Recruit
Assistant in the Central Secretariat Service. Subsequently,
he appeared in the Section Officer Grade Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination, 2003 (LDCE),
conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC),
as per the Recruitment Rules, applicable to the post of
Section Officer. As per the Rules, 50% of the vacancy in a
recruitment year, were to be filled through the LDCE. In the
said examination for the year 2003, UPSC declared 243
candidates as successful for the promotion to the post of
Section Officer. Thereafter, the Department of Personnel
and Training (DOP&T), being the cadre controlling authority
requested the UPSC to release the additional list of repeat
candidates of unreserved category. Pursuant to this
request, UPSC released an additional list of 3 unreserved
candidates namely Mr. Jasbir Singh Negi, Mr. Ranjit Kumar
Srivastava and Mr. Abhay Nandan Mishra.
3. Petitioner is a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate. He
claimed that SC candidates, who had secured marks
equivalent to the general standards, at par with the
unreserved candidates, were not adjusted against the
unreserved vacancies. Had the adjustments been made, the
SC vacancies would have fallen vacant and the Petitioner
could have been accommodated against one of such
vacancies. In the list released by UPSC, the last unreserved
candidate namely Mr. Kumar Manoj Kashyap was shown at
serial No. 210. Below him only SC/ST candidates were
placed. By the supplementary list furnished by the UPSC
dated 15th February, 2007, Mr. Jasbir Singh Negi, Mr.
Ranjit Kumar Srivastava and Mr. Abhay Nandan Mishra
were recommended and they belonged to unreserved
category. Mr. Jasbir Singh Negi and Mr. Ranjit Kumar
Srivastava were placed between serial No. 213 and 214 and
so far as Mr. Abhay Nandan Mishra is concerned, he was
placed between serial No. 222 and 223, thereby he became
last unreserved candidate. Petitioner claimed that the SC
candidates above serial No. 222, having secured higher
marks, were necessarily required to be accommodated
against the unreserved vacancy and in such an eventuality
Petitioner being a SC candidate would have been eligible for
the post of Section Officer in the SC category.
4. As against this, case of the Respondent was that the
last unreserved candidate was placed at serial No. 210
which was later on brought down to the level of Mr. A.N.
Mishra an unreserved repeat candidate. 12 candidates in
SC/ST categories between the serial No. 210 and Mr. A.N.
Mishra, were not entitled to unreserved vacancies as they
had attained that position in the list on relaxed criteria.
They did not fulfil the standard set in the written part of
LDCE of 200 marks, duly approved by the UPSC for
unreserved candidates. All the SC/ST candidates beyond
serial No. 210 were placed in the list as per the relaxed
standard, accordingly, SC candidates below the rank of 210
till Mr. A.N. Mishra could not have been adjusted against
the unreserved vacancies. SC candidates had already
availed the relaxed standard, as per the examination rules
and were to be placed against reserved posts. Therefore,
they cannot claim unreserved posts.
5. Tribunal called for the records of UPSC regarding the
LDCE including the marks list of 4 questioned unreserved
and 11 SC and 1 ST candidates to verify as to whether the
standards were relaxed in the case of SC/ST candidates
below the serial No. 210 or not. Tribunal found that the
standard set for unreserved category of 200 marks in
written examination, was relaxed in case of all the 11 SC
and 1 ST candidates, who were placed below the last
unreserved category candidate namely Mr. Kumar Manoj
Kashyap. Tribunal found that these 11 SC and 1 ST
candidates had secured less marks in written examination.
Tribunal considered the additional affidavit by the UPSC as
also the records produced before it and summarised the
position of unreserved, SC/ST candidates from the serial
No. 210 onwards, which for the sake of ready reference, is
reproduced as under :-
Rank Candidate's Name Community Qualified under
No. Category
210 Kumar Manoj Kashyaop General General in the Main
List
211 Inder Jeet SC SC at relaxed
standard in Main List
212 Shakti Shamsher SC -do-
213 Biplab Kumar Naskar SC -do-
214 Jasbir Singh Negi General General in
Supplementary List
215 Ranjit Kumar Srivastava General General in
Supplementary List
216 Kuldip Kumar SC SC at relaxed
standard in Main List
217 M. Jena SC -do-
218 Sunil Kumar SC -do-
219 Rajesh Kumar SC -do-
220 Amrish Kumar SC -do-
221 Bipin Kumar Hembrom ST ST at relaxed
standard in Main List
222 Lakshmi Kanta Halder SC SC at relaxed
standard in Main List
223 Raj Kumar SC -do-
224 Rohtas Bhankhar SC -do-
225 Abhay Nandan Mishra General General in
Supplementary List
226 Sahdev Singh SC SC at relaxed
standard in Main List
227 Pradip Kumar Pal SC -do-
228 Deen Dayal SC -do-
229 Lakhmi Chand SC -do-
230 Rajinder Kumar SC -do-
231 Rachna SC -do-
232 Dharkat Rungsung ST ST at relaxed
Luikang standard in Main List
233 Ashish Kumar SC SC at relaxed
Tarachand standard in Main List
234 Sneh Lata SC -do-
235 Shankar Lal Bairwa SC -do-
236 Sudheer Babu Motana SC -do-
237 Naresh Kumar SC -do-
238 Nithali Ram SC -do-
239 Surendra Kumar SC -do-
240 Sunita SC -do-
241 Rajesh Kumar Gujar SC -do-
242 Anjan Biswas SC -do-
243 Yogesh R. Patel ST ST at relaxed
standard in Main List
244 Yoginder Kumar SC SC at relaxed
standard in Main List
6. Tribunal also took note of Rule 8 of the Examination
Rules for holding that SC candidates could not have been
treated as unreserved candidates as they had attained their
position in the list below Mr. Kumar Manoj Kashyap, on the
basis of relaxed standards and thus could not have been
placed against the unreserved vacancies.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We
do not find any error in the impugned order of the Tribunal,
which has been passed on the basis of records produced
before it, as well as the rule position.
8. The Rule 8 of the Examination Rules reads as under :-
"8(i) After the examination, candidates
will be arranged by the commission in the
order of merit as disclosed by the
aggregate marks finally awarded to each
candidate; and in that order so many
candidates as are found by the
Commission to be qualified at the
examination shall be recommended for
inclusion in the select list for each
category up to the required number.
(ii) The candidates belonging to the any
of the Scheduled Caste or the schedule
Tribe may to the extent of the number of
vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe be recommended by
the Commission by relaxed standard,
subject to the fitness of these candidates
for inclusion in the select list for each
category irrespective of their ranks in the
order of merit at the examination.
Provided that the candidates belonging to
the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes who have been recommended by
the Commission without resorting to any
relaxation/concession in the eligibility or
selection criteria, at any stage of
examination, shall not be adjusted
against the vacancies reserved for
Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled
Tribes."
9. Proviso to sub rule (ii), quoted above clearly shows that
in case SC/ST candidate attains his position in the merit
list without resorting to any relaxed eligibility criteria then
he would be eligible to an unreserved post. In this case, the
SC/ST candidates shown below Mr. Kumar Manoj Kashyap
had attained ranking in the select list, on the basis of the
relaxed standards and cannot claim their appointment on
an unreserved post.
10. Tribunal has returned a categorical finding in this
regard, on the basis of records produced before it in support
of the plea taken in the counter affidavit/additional affidavit
filed by the Respondent. Accordingly, we have no reason to
disbelieve the plea taken by the Respondent which is
supported by the records of examination.
11. We do not find any error in the view taken by the
Tribunal that the reserved category candidates below Mr.
Kumar Manoj Kashyap were not eligible to be placed against
the unreserved vacancies, as they had attained that position
on the basis of the relaxed standards. These reserved
category candidates had attained lesser marks in the
written examination of LDCE than the unreserved
candidates and thus were not eligible to be qualified or
accommodated against the unreserved post of Section
Officer.
12. It is worth mentioning here that name of the Petitioner
does not find mention in the select list, even after relaxed
standard of eligibility criteria for SC candidates.
13. In the light of the above discussions we do not find any
merit in this writ petition.
14. Dismissed.
A.K. PATHAK, J
MADAN B. LOKUR, J
OCTOBER 06, 2009
ga
