Manoj Kumar Roy vs Department Of Personnel And ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 4171 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                Decided on: September 16, 2013
+      WP(C) NO. 5807/2013

       MANOJ KUMAR ROY                          ..... Appellant
                   Through:              Mr.     Aditya      Ranjan,
                   Advocate.

                           versus

       DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL &
       TRAINING, GOI & ORS.           ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Arati Mahajan, Adv.

for R-1 & R-3/Union of India.

Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Adv.

for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

% MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI(Oral)

1. Being aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative

Tribunal ("Tribunal") dated 6th February, 2013 ("impugned

order"), in O. A. No. 214 of 2012 the petitioner has impugned it

in this petition. The Tribunal declined the relief he sought, i.e. of

directions being issued to the respondent Government of India,

to allocate / appoint him in the Indian Revenue Service

(Customs and Central Excise, Group A) ("IRS") in the OBC

WP(C) No.5807/2013 Page 1 category of physically disabled "hearing impaired" candidate

("PDHI").

2. The petitioner's case is that the notification for Civil Services

Examination issued on 6th December, 2008, regarding 580 posts

did not specify any seat being reserved for PDHI category

candidates for the IRS. He applied in the exams in the PDHI

category, but could not indicate any preference for the IRS,

since no reservation for PDHI category was shown in the IRS

vacancies at the time of issuance of the notification for the

examination. In the provisional list of selected candidates, the

service allocation was indicated on 12th August, 2010, but it did

not show PDHI category candidates. A week thereafter, by a

letter dated 19th August, 2010, the petitioner was intimated that

he had been allocated Indian Ordnance Factories Service, Group

A. The final service allocation list dated 10 th December, 2010,

put up on the website of the DoPT, showed two persons lower in

rank to the petitioner being allocated IRS, in the PDHI category.

Prior to this pursuant to orders of the Tribunal dated 4th October,

2010 in another proceedings, another successful candidate, Shri

WP(C) No.5807/2013 Page 2 Sanjeev Kumar Jha at merit rank 869, was allocated IRS. The

order was successfully challenged by the Government before

this Court, later on it was stayed by the Supreme Court on

appeal. During the pendency of the said Special Leave Petition

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Jha qualified for the IAS in 2010 and the

petition became infructuous. The Petitioner claimed that being

next in the Select List (i.e. Rank 870) immediately after Shri

Sanjeev Kumar Jha, he ought to have been allocated the post

instead of the candidate at serial no. 871, and other candidates,

who were successively lower in the merit list rankings.

3. The Tribunal reasoned that the petitioner had not specified

his preference for the IRS anywhere in his list of service

preferences, whereas the candidates at serial no. 871, 872 and

873 had specifically done so. The petitioner had argued that

since no vacancy was indicated for the PDHI category in the

relevant form, he was precluded from indicating his specific

preference for the IRS. He now seeks the posts on the basis of

vacancy for PDHI category and first allotment on merit in the

Select List. He did however concede that in the UPSC form, it

WP(C) No.5807/2013 Page 3 was duly notified that the number of vacancies was expected to

be changed. The relevant provision of the applicable rule being

Note-I below Rule 2 in Rule 19 of the Civil Services

Examination Rules, 2007 which reads as follows:

"Note-I - The candidate is advised to be very careful while indicating preferences for various services / posts. In this connection, attention is also invited to rule 19 of the Rules. The candidate is also advised to indicate all the services / posts in the order of preference in his / her application form. In case he / she does not give any preference for any services / posts, it will be assumed that he / she has no specific preference for those services. If he / she is not allotted to any one of the services / posts for which he / she has indicated preference, he / she shall be allotted to any of the remaining services / posts in which there are vacancies after allocation of all the candidates who can be allocated to services / posts in accordance with their preferences.

XXX

19. (i) Due consideration will be given at the time of making allocation on the results of the examination to the preferences expressed y a candidate for various services at the time of his application. The appointment to various services will also be governed by the Rules / Regulations in force as applicable to the respective Services at the time of appointment.

(ii) The cadre allotment to candidates' appointment to IAS/IPS will be governed by the policy of cadre allotment in force at the time of allotment of cadre. Due consideration will be given at the time of making allocation on the results of the examination to the preferences expressed by a candidate for various cadres at the time of his application."

WP(C) No.5807/2013 Page 4

4. The Tribunal noted that the petitioner relied upon the order

passed by it in the case of Shri Sanjeev Kumar Jha, which

however was later was set aside by this Court. The SLP against

the High Court order was withdrawn as aforesaid but all

questions of law were left open. The Tribunal further noted that

the 580 vacancies indicated by the Government were only

tentative and were likely to be revised; a prudent person ought

to have kept this in mind in indicating service preferences. The

Petitioner/Applicant was allocated the service he had sought (in

order of merit) and the Government could not be faulted

similarly treating other candidates as per their specified

preferences below him in the order of merit.

5. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has reiterated the same

grounds as he did before the Tribunal. He further contends that

it was not possible for him to imagine or make a conjecture

about a likelihood of seats being allocated to PDHI candidates

in the IRS.

WP(C) No.5807/2013 Page 5

6. This Court is unimpressed with the arguments of the

petitioner. We notice that indeed the number of posts offered for

being filling up increased from 580 to 989. Consequently, there

was an increase in the number of seats allocable to the IRS in

the PDHI category also. We further notice that Note-I of the

aforesaid rule, advises the candidates in unambiguous terms that

they must indicate their preferences in their entirety, i.e. all

those services to which the applicant aspires ought to be listed in

their order of preference. In the present case, the petitioner

ought to have kept this in mind all-the-more-so, because there

was, as indicated in the form, a likelihood of change in the

number of posts being offered. Prudence indeed required that

the petitioner indicate all his preferences, irrespective of

whether or not any vacancies were indicated for the PDHI

category a propos any service. The other candidates, equally

placed like the petitioner understood the import of Note-I

(supra) and indicated their preference for IRS. They were

accordingly allocated the said service in the order of the merit

list. The petitioner who chose to remain silent cannot be

WP(C) No.5807/2013 Page 6 preferred over those who had expressed their choices as per the

rules applicable to the examination. A higher degree of alacrity

and diligence would be expected from a candidate aspiring to a

more preferred service. The petitioner has not displayed this

essential quality expected of an officer in pursuit of his career

aspiration. Instead he has litigated without cause before the

Tribunal, and insisted on doing so before this Court too.

7. For the reasons stated herein above, the Court finds no

reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Tribunal

rightly declined to grant any relief to the petitioner.

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. For pursuing

frivolous litigation, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 75,000/-

as costs to the respondents within two weeks from today, and

file an affidavit of compliance.

NAJMI WAZIRI (JUDGE)

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 'sn'

WP(C) No.5807/2013 Page 7