Babu Ram vs Union Of India And Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 5816 Del

$~10
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                   W.P.(C) No.2568/2013 & CM No.4850/2013


%                                   Date of decision: 17th December, 2013


       BABU RAM                                               ..... Petitioner
                           Through:       Mr.M.Rais Farooqui and Mr.S.A.Abdi,
                                          Advocates.

                           versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.                  ..... Respondents

Through: Mr.R.V.Sinha and Mr.P.K.Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

GITA MITTAL (Oral)

1. The petitioner in the instant case has participated in the selection process

for the post of SI/ASI in the Central Police Organization conducted pursuant to

an advertisement dated 28th May, 2011 in the Employment News/Rozgar

Samachar. It is undisputed that the petitioner was an ex-service man candidate

who had applied in the Scheduled Caste category and is therefore entitled to

age relaxation.

2. The petitioner successfully participated in the written examination;

physical efficiency test; medical examination as well as the interview. The

grievance of the petitioner that despite his successful participation, as per the

result declared on 1st March, 2012, no letter of appointment was issued to the

petitioner. His representations dated 4th July, 2012 and 5th February, 2013 were

also not responded to.

3. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken a stand that the

petitioner was overage and therefore was not offered the appointment. In

response thereto, the petitioner urged that even though he may have been

overage for consideration for appointment to the Group B post of Sub-

Inspector in the CISF, BSF, CRPF, however, he was within the age criterion

for the appointment to the post of ASI in the CISF, Group C post.

In view of the above, we had called for the original record of the

petitioner including the application which he had submitted. The record has

been produced and perused by us.

4. The record substantiates the case set up by the respondents. The

respondents had offered vacancies for the following post in the advertisement

dated 28th May, 2011:

      Sl. No.       Post Code    Post Name            Post Category
      1.            A            SI in CISF           Gr. 'B' Post
      2.            B            ASI in CISF          Gr. 'C' Post
      3.            C            SI in BSF            Gr. 'B' Post
      4.            D            SI in CRPF           Gr. 'B' Post



          5.           E             SI in ITBP          Gr. 'B' Post
         6.           F             SI in SSB           Gr. 'B' Post
         7.           G             IO in NCB           Gr. 'B' Post

5. So far as age criteria substantiated by the respondent is concerned, it had

been notified that the candidates had to be between 20 to 25 years of age as on

24th June, 2011 stipulated as the cut-off date.

6. The notice of examination further made the following specific

prescriptions:

"4. That regarding age limit, the notice of examination stated as under:

"Para 4 (A) AGE LIMIT: for the post of Sub-Inspector in COPs and Asstt. Sub-Inspector in CISF: 20 - 25 years as on 24.06.2011, the normal closing date for receipt of application. Candidates should not have been born earlier than 25-06-1986 and not later than 23-06-1991.

Age limit for the post of Intelligence Officer in NCB is 20 -27 years as on 24-06-1984. Candidates should not have been born earlier than 25-06-1984 and not later than 23-06-1991.

4 (B). Category codes and age relaxation available to different category of eligible candidates, for claiming Age Relaxation as on the date of reckoning:

         Code         Category                    Age relaxation permissible
                                                  beyond the upper age limit
         xx           xx                          xxx          xxx



                     For Group B post

      08            Ex-Servicemen              10 years
                    (SC/ST)

      xx            xx                         xxx            xxx

      11            For Group C Post           08 years (3 years + 5 years)
                                               after deduction of the military
                                               service rendered from the
                                               actual age as n the closing date.

The notice is considered sacrosanct by the Commission for the conduct of all its examinations and the Commission adheres strictly to its stipulations. The candidates are also equally bound by its provisions."

7. We may usefully refer to the conditions given in Note-I & Note II of

para 12 of the Notice:

"Note I: Success in the Examination confers no right of appointment unless government is satisfied after such enquiry as may be considered necessary that the candidate is suitable in all respects of appointment to the service/post.

Note II: The candidates applying for the examination should ensure that they fulfil all the eligibility conditions for admission ion the examination. Their admission at all the stages of examination will be purely provisional subject to their satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions. If, on verification, at any time before or after written examination and interview, it is found that they do not fulfil any of the eligibility conditions, their candidature for the examination will be cancelled by the Commission."

8. The petitioner had opted for the preference bearing code numbers G,

E, A, C, F and D. He did not submit any option for Code B which relates to

the ASI post in the CISF.

9. The petitioner had also opted only for the Group B posts and had not

opted for Group C posts.

10. As per the provisions of para 4 (B), the petitioner as a Scheduled

Caste candidate was entitled to 10 years age relaxation for appointment to

Group B post. The petitioner was born on 15th May, 1974. With regard to

the age-wise eligibility, the respondents had taken the closing dated as on

24th June, 2011. As on this date, the petitioner had attained approximately

37 years of age.

11. So far as recruitment to Group B post is concerned, the petitioner as

an ex serviceman cum schedule caste candidate was entitled to 10 years age

relaxations as mentioned in para 4 (B) of the recruitment notice for group B

posts. We have noted above, the prescription for different vacancies. A

candidate was required to fall between 20 to 25 years of age. Even if, the

petitioner was granted 10 years age relaxation, as noted above, he was 27

years of age on 24th June, 2011 and was therefore overage by two years for

the purpose of selection to the Group B post.

12. The petitioner has pointed out that the respondents had recommended

his selection and appointment in the ITBP pursuant to the above

examination. However, at the time of the post interview scrutiny, he was

found to be overage and therefore no letter of appointment was issued to

him.

13. After the respondents have set up this stand in the counter affidavit,

the petitioner has urged that he was eligible for appointment to the post of

ASI in the CISF which vacancy the respondents had notified in their

advertisement. This post is a Group C post. The respondents have pointed

out that the petitioner had opted for only six group B posts and had not opted

for any Group C post. The original application form produced by the Staff

Selection Commission from the petitioner reflects the following preferences

submitted by the petitioner:

       "Order of Preference                                           Code
1.     Intelligence Officer in Narcotics
       Control Bureau (NCB)                                 G

2.     Sub-Inspector in Indo-Tibetan Border
       Police Force (ITBP)                                  E

3. Sub-Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) A

4. Sub-Inspector in Border Security Force (BSF) C

5. Sub-Inspector in Sashstra Seema Bal (SSB) F

6. Sub-Inspector in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) D"

It is manifest from the above that the petitioner had not submitted an

option for the post of ASI in the CISF which was carrying the Group C post.

14. A half hearted oral submission has been pressed by learned counsel for

the petitioner that the Staff Selection Commission has manipulated application

of the petitioner. The same is noted only for the sake of rejection. The writ

petition does not raise any such issue.

15. The petitioner was aware of his date of birth as well as the stipulation

with regard to the permissible relaxation and therefore would have been very

well aware of the fact that he did not meet age criteria for the appointment of

Group B post. No representation was made by him at any point of time to the

effect that he had applied for the post of ASI in the CISF (a Group C post). In

the writ petition, the petitioner still seeks issuance of a writ for his appointment

to the post of Sub Inspector, the Group B post. For this reason as well, the oral

submission made by the petitioner to the effect that he is entitled for

appointment to Group C deserves to be rejected.

16. For all these reasons, we find no merit in the writ petition.

The Writ petition and the application are accordingly dismissed.

GITA MITTAL, J

DEEPA SHARMA, J DECEMBER 17, 2013/ rb