Sunita vs Union Of India And Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 4834 Del

$~13
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Date of Decision: August 17, 2012

+                          W.P.(C) 4845/2012

      SUNITA                                  ..... Petitioner
                  Represented by: Mr.Shubham Bhalla, Advocate.

                  versus


      UNION OF INDIA AND ANR                  ..... Respondents
                Represented by: Mr.Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate
                                with Mr.Nityanand Ray, Under
                                Secretary, Staff Selection
                                Commission.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

PRADEEP NANDAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner is a constable with CISF. She took the Central Police Organizations Examination - 2009 for the post of Sub-Inspector. She filled up her application listing that she is an OBC candidate.

2. Result of the examination was declared on September 10, 2010. Result of seven candidates was withheld. No reasons were disclosed. Petitioner was one out of the seven candidates whose result was withheld.

3. Communications sent by the petitioner on May 23, 2011, July 24, 2011, September 27, 2011 and November 07, 2011 were not responded to. No reasons were disclosed to her as to why the result was not declared. The result was also not declared.

4. The petitioner was constrained to approach this

Court.

5. On August 09, 2012 we had desired to know from the respondents as to what was keeping back the declaration of the result of the petitioner keeping in view the fact that as regards other candidates the results were declared way back on September 10, 2010.

6. Today Shri Nityanand Ray, Under Secretary, Staff Selection Commission has handed over a letter dated August 17, 2012 addressed by Shri Satya Prakash, Under Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, which reads as under:-

"To

The Regional Director, Northern Region, Staff Selection Commission, CGO Complex, Block No.12, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

Sub: SI in CPOs Exam., 2009 - WP No.4845/2012 filed by Sunita vs. UOI in the High Court of Delhi - release of rank no. reg.

Sir/Madam,

I am directed to refer to your letter No.2/168/2012 - legal dated 14.-08-2012 on the subject mentioned above and to release the rank no. of Ms.Sunita Roll No.2405010745, a candidate of above mentioned examination whose result was withheld for want of verification of OBC certificate produced by the candidate/petitioner. After verifying the records, her rank no. is released which is as under.

             Roll No.     Name       Cat.    Rank No.    Posting

          2405010745      Sunita     OBC    SLB/00068      CISF

2. You are therefore requested to kindly take

further necessary action for nomination of the candidate if she is otherwise eligible and also bring this fact into the notice of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on the date of hearing scheduled to be held on 17th Aug. 2012. The dossier (in original) of the candidate is also returned herewith.

3. Due to voluminous work handled in the Commission, the case was hitherto unattended. It is seen that there was no reminder from the Northern Regional office after the dossier was called for examination of the documents. The case could have been cleared earlier if had been perused through periodical reminders.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Satya Prakash) Under Secretary (C-1/1) 17-08-2012 Encl. as above."

7. We are pained at two counts with respect to the letter in question. Our first pain is on account of the fact that on August 09, 2012 we had required learned counsel for the respondents to obtain instructions and inform the Court as to why petitioner's result was not declared, and had re-notified the matter for August 16, 2012 i.e. yesterday.

8. We were told yesterday that the department was wanting more time to supply the requisite information to the counsel concerned.

9. As per us, it was a simple act of simply telling the reason as to why the result was not declared. No fact had to be verified. No data had to be complied. No record had to be perused save and except the reason in the record as to why the result was not declared.

10. We had listed the matter for today directing the personal presence of the Regional Director (Northern Region) of the Staff Selection Commission, making it clear that if the officer was on leave the next junior officer in the hierarchy should appear.

11. Surprisingly enough, within less than 10 hours thereof, the administrative machinery has been able to not only find the cause for which result of the petitioner was not declared but also that it was the supine negligence and inefficiency of the department which was the cause. The result of the petitioner has been declared today itself.

12. Our second cause for the pain is that the reason given in the order i.e. due to voluminous work handled in the Commission, the case was hitherto unattended, to say the least, is a most regretful admission of supine indifference, callousness and the Rip-van-Winkle attitude adopted by the officers of the Staff Selection Commission.

13. We do not know whether the petitioner would have to fight a further battle to retain her seniority. What happens to her entitlement for wages to the higher post?

14. The petitioner has found herself empanelled for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in a Central Para Military Force. To which of the six Central Para Military Forces she would be allocated to is not known. To whichever Central Para Military Force she is allocated to, we would expect a stand to be taken by the said Force that the petitioner not having worked on the post in question would not be entitled to the wages thereof.

15. Accordingly, we find facts of the instant case justifying imposition of exemplary costs against the respondents

and in favour of the petitioner. This would be partial recompense of the higher wages lost by the petitioner.

16. We dispose of the writ petition taking on record that the respondents have today declared the result of the petitioner as per which she has qualified to be appointed as a Sub- Inspector in a Central Para Military Force.

17. We direct the Staff Selection Commission to forthwith, and by forthwith we mean 24 hours, to issue a letter to the concerned Para Military Force in which the petitioner would have to join as a Sub-Inspector. Needless to state, letter of re-appointment would then be issued to the petitioner.

18. The petitioner is also held entitled to costs in sum of `1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh) which shall be recovered from such officers, after inquiry being conducted, who are guilty of supine indifference, gross negligence, bordering on culpability. The Regional Director (Northern Region) of the Staff Selection Commission shall conduct an inquiry and recover the cost from said officers who are responsible.

19. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master to learned counsel for the parties.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE AUGUST 17, 2012 dk