Delhi High Court
Dhanendra Kumar Premi vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors. on 13 August, 2013
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: August 13, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 4862/2012
DHANENDRA KUMAR PREMI ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. .... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Anjum Javed, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order
dated June 01, 2012 in Original Application No.3747/2011 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal), whereby the Original Application
was dismissed.
2. The petitioner belongs to the scheduled caste category and had
sought an appointment as Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police in the year
2008-09. The result of the selection was declared in the month of
April/May 2009 in which the name of the petitioner did not figure.
3. He filed an RTI application on October 21, 2009 seeking information
on certain aspects relating to the recruitment process. Be it noted that no
information was sought by him with respect to NCC Certificate alleged to
have been submitted by him at the time of interview.
4. The last of the RTI application was submitted by him on May 30,
2011 which was replied by the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment cell, Delhi, vide his letter dated June 16, 2011, wherein against
point No.4 it was mentioned that one bonus mark for NCC Certificate-B
was given to the candidates subject to the production of original NCC
Certificate-B before the Board.
5. That thereafter he made a representation on June 30, 2011, wherein
he stated that he had submitted NCC Certificate-B at the time of the
interview and required to be given one mark. He further requested the
authorities that he be given the appointment to the post of Constable.
6. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Recruitment Cell, Delhi, on September 02, 2011
wherein it is stated that the petitioner had not submitted NCC Certificate-B
at the time of interview and as such no action can be taken with regard to
his appointment as Constable.
7. The petitioner challenged the letter dated September 02, 2011 before
the Tribunal. The Tribunal in its impugned order, was of the view that the
plea of the petitioner was not supported by the records maintained for the
purpose and in the absence of allegations of mala fides, his case was not
found tenable by the Tribunal.
8. Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that since there was no column in the application form, the
petitioner could not mention about the fact that he possesses NCC
Certificate-B. He would further submit that the petitioner had sent the NCC
Certificate-B along with the application and also submitted the same to the
Interview Board. According to him, despite giving the certificate, he has
not been granted one mark for undergoing the said course. If the same had
been considered he would have got one mark which would have made him
successful in the recruitment and would have been given the appointment.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
would submit that the petitioner had not submitted the copy of the NCC
Certificate-B despite being told in categorical terms vide letter dated
December 17, 2008 (Page 33 Annexure P5) which was issued to each of
the candidates who were called for the interview. A perusal of the said
letter would show that the Recruitment Cell had asked each of the
candidates called for the interview to bring along with them attested
photocopy of each document mentioned therein. Serial No.(vi) refer to the
NCC Certificate-B&C.
10. The controversy before the Tribunal was whether the petitioner had
submitted the photocopy of the NCC Certificate-B at the time of the
interview. The Tribunal on this particular aspect has observed as under:
"The ultimately boils down to the point as to whether
the applicant deserved to be given 1 extra mark for the
NCC Certificate, as per the respondents' policy. For
want of an appropriate column for this purpose, the
Application Form is of no avail. The requisite stage
instead was at the time of the interview and the
certificate was to be produced before the Interview
Board, for which a record was maintained in a
prescribed proforma. As against the bald submissions of
the applicant, we have been confronted with the records
produced by the respondents showing a negative status
regarding the submission of such a certificate by the
applicant before the Interview Board."
11. That apart the Tribunal in para No.7 of the order has stated as under:
"The settled law on the subject is that even a selectee
does not have a legally indefeasible right for
appointment. In the present case, the applicant was not
even a formally selected candidate. The claim being
agitated pertains to a selection process of 2008-09 long
since closed. The attempt on the part of the applicant in
the present case is only by way agitating certain issues
by relying upon information received upon the RTI. Even
delving within that, there is no substantive basis to plead
the claim of the applicant, which is not supported by the
records maintained for the purpose. There is no plea of
mala fide against the respondents. Even the plea of the
case of the applicant deserving consideration against
certain unfilled vacancies for that selection process has
not been found to be tenable in view of the submissions
by the respondents. The judgment of the Madras High
Court being relied upon is not really relevant in the
present context.
12. We have considered submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties.
13. We see that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the Original
Application filed by the petitioner for the reasons stated by it and which
have been referred above. Apart from the above reasons, the additional
reasons would be that the petitioner had not impleaded the last person
selected as Constable (Executive) in the scheduled caste category. No relief
could be granted without dislodging the last candidate selected in the said
category. That apart it is seen that the selection process had taken place in
the year 2008-09. Five years have gone by. Further it is the stand of the
respondents that the remaining vacancies have been carried forward for the
subsequent year(s) and the selection process has been conducted and the
results have been declared.
14. Hence, we so no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the
Tribunal in the impugned order dated June 01, 2012.
15. Before parting we pen a line of advice to the authorities. This
situation would not have arisen, had they included one column specifying;
whether a candidate possesses NCC Certificate-B or C, the same would
have enabled a candidate actually possessing such a certificate(s) to
indicate the same. We hope and trust, the authorities shall take steps in this
regard.
16. In view of what we have said above, we dismiss the writ petition as
being without merit.
17. No costs.
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
AUGUST 13, 2013
km
