Delhi High Court
Kapil Kumar vs Union Of India And Anr. on 18 March, 2013
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18.03.2013
+ W.P.(C) 1729/2013
KAPIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Kumar , Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. The petitioner seeks a direction that he should be offered appointment
to any Central Police Organisations. He had participated in the selection
process pursuant to an advertisement dated 30.5.2009, by which applications
were invited for competitive examination to fill up vacancies on all India
basis to the post of sub-inspectors in Central Police Organisations. The total
number of unreserved vacancies were 1091 at the relevant time. The
petitioner argues that he secured an aggregate of 304 marks and was clearly
entitled to be included in the select list. However, he also highlights the fact
that the last cut off marks for each of the participating CPOs was lower than
304. In CISF the cut off marks was 295, in CRPF it was 284 and in BSF it
was 281. His candidature was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had
not indicated the choice of service as a result of which the SSC, in
accordance with the instructions, would consider the applicant's case after
W.P.(C) 1729/2013 Page 1
considering all others. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the concerned
stipulation in the advertisement, which reads as follows:
"21. PREFERENCE(S):
A candidate must indicate at Serial No.19 in the Application
Form, the preference for the Organisations / Service for which
he / she would like to be considered for appointment in the
order of preference in case he / she is recommended for
appointment by Staff Selection Commission.
Note: The candidate is advised to be very careful particularly
about various standards laid down by various Police
Organisations for determining their ligibility/considerations
while indicating the order of preferences for appointment as
Sub-Inspector in various Organisations. The candidate is also
advised to indicate all the Organisations in the order of
preference in his / her application form. In case he / she does
not indicate any of services / posts, it will be assumed that he /
she does not want to be considered for those services and the
Commission will have the discretion to allocate such candidates
to any Cadre / Organisation as per the availability of vacancies
without corresponding with the candidates. Allocation of
services to the candidates selected would be made strictly,
keeping in view their position in merit and the order of
preference for various services.
2. It is argued that the above condition nowhere empowers the
authorities to reject the application altogether, specially when the candidate
secured more marks then the cut off for the relevant service in the same
category. In any event counsel argued alternatively that the petitioner
should have been considered for vacancies which not only existed in the
relevant year, but also in the succeeding years 2010-2011. Counsel sought
to rely upon the fact that in the subsequent advertisement too a number of
vacancies went unfilled. Counsel lastly submitted that the petitioner was
W.P.(C) 1729/2013 Page 2
misled into believing that before approaching the Court, he should await the
decision of the authorities on the representations made by him. This Court
has considered the submissions and also notice that he had approached
another lawyer earlier but the said counsel did not take any steps to approach
the Court. Counsel relied upon the copy of the complaint made to the Delhi
Bar Council in this regard of the concerned lawyer. This Court has
considered the submissions. It is evident that the Petitioner was made aware
of the condition contained in Clause 21 which did not unambiguously reject
the candidature but gave him limited right of consideration of his case as
against the unfilled vacancies which the authorities could assign to
candidates who had not given their preferences in the first instance. There is
no doubt that the Petitioner has performed better than at least three
candidates which were selected and given appointment on the basis of
same common entrance examination in the unreserved category.
3. In that sense, the Petitioner's grievance is appears to be justified.
However, this Court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances that the
recruitment examination took place in 2005 and the results were declared in
the same year. Thereafter appointments were made in relation to the
vacancies. Apparently, in the successive years too advertisements were
issued which notified vacancies that included he vacancies which had
remained unfilled. On account of these subsequent events, rights accrued in
respect of the vacancies that were advertised in the later recruitment years
for which the other candidates had applied and were selected. Some were
undoubtedly entitled to be treated in a manner similar to the Petitioner and in
all probability might have been assigned one service or the other on account
of the aforesaid condition in Clause 21.
W.P.(C) 1729/2013 Page 3
4. In this situation the Petitioner has clearly approached this Court in a
belated manner. It is true that there is no period of limitation applicable in
case of Article 226 proceedings. However, events that took place rapidly
and created situations that crystalised into rights of third parties specially in
the matter of recruitment. Here the Petitioner appears to have been also
misled into awaiting the outcome of his representations, which is also a
factor that made the Petitioner approach this Court belatedly. However, that
by itself cannot persuade the Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction
in a petition which is clearly belated.
The writ petition is rejected.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 18, 2013
aj
W.P.(C) 1729/2013 Page 4
