Delhi High Court
Sunil Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 May, 2014
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1133/2014
% Date of decision: 28th May, 2014
SUNIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.U.Srivastava, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Saqib, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12 th December,
2013 passed in O.A.No.2811/2012. The facts giving rise to the
instant petition, to the extent necessary, are briefly noted hereafter.
2. It appears that the respondent notified an advertisement for the
post of Security Assistant (Executive) Group-C (Non Gazetted & Non
Ministerial) in General Category for their Centre of Leh in Jammu &
Kashmir. It is the admitted position that out of 15 vacancies, 8 were
unreserved whereas four vacancies were reserved for OBC
candidates, one for SC and two for ST candidates.
3. The respondents have disclosed that 5,31,499 candidates had
applied for 648 posts. Since it was difficult task to scrutinize the
applications, the respondents had outsourced scrutinizy of all the
applications as well as the work of feeding of data of eligible
candidates, issue of admit cards for objective type test, evaluation of
OMR sheets and preparation of result of written examination to M/s
C.S.Datamation Research Services Pvt. Ltd, a private firm.
4. It is also an undisputed position that the petitioner appeared in
the examination in the unreserved general category against Roll
No.1300098 in the examination which was held on 26 th September,
2010. The petitioner was declared successful in the written
examination. He was called for interview on 15th May, 2011.
5. The final result of the examination was published in the
Employment News dated 20-26th August, 2011. In this result, Jagdish
Prasad an OBC category candidate was shown as a successful
candidate against the Roll No.13000098 whereas the petitioner was a
general category candidate who had been assigned the same roll
number.
6. For the reason that no appointment letter was issued to the
petitioner, he assailed the action of the respondent by way of
O.A.No.2811/2012.
7. The respondent explained the manner in which the examination
was conducted as well as the fact that the scrutiny having been
outsourced to the private firm. It is pointed out that out of 531499
candidates only 2,08,347 candidates (39%) could appear in the
examination. This appears to be on account of errors on the part of
the said outsourced firm. As a result, the respondents took a decision
to give a chance to those 61% candidates who were unable to appear
in the written examination held on 26th September, 2010.
The firm was required to issue roll numbers and fresh admit
cards to such candidates who were unable to appear in the September,
2010 examination.
8. Unfortunately, M/s C.S.Datamation Research Services Pvt. Ltd.
defaulted yet again. It appears that the firm issued admit cards to the
candidates who were to appear in the examination which was to be
held on 16th November, 2010, with the same series of roll numbers as
had been assigned to candidates who had appeared in the examination
on 26th September, 2010. Several instances of the duplication have
been noted in the impugned order.
9. It was pointed out to the Tribunal and has been noted in the
impugned order that for instance, at the Leh Centre, there were 2051
eligible candidates and the series of roll numbers assigned by the firm
were from 13000001 to 13002051. As 1023 number of candidates
had appeared on 26th September, 2010, a total number of 1028
candidates who could not appear in this examination were to appear
on 16th January, 2011. Instead of assigning roll numbers other than
those already assigned, the firm issued the same series of roll numbers
i.e. 13000001 to 13001028 to the candidates who were to appear in
the examination held on 16th January, 2011.
10. As a result while the petitioner had been assigned the roll
number 13000098 for the examination held on 26 th September, 2010,
the firm assigned this very roll number to one Jagdish Prasad, an
OBC candidate for the examination which was to be held on 16 th
January, 2011.
11. It is also on record that the petitioner had secured 99 marks out
of 200 marks in the general category.
12. The record shows that candidates of general category who
secured 130 marks and above out of 200 marks were included in the
merit list against 22 candidates meant for general category candidates.
The petitioner, therefore, could not be selected for want of merit
position.
13. So far as Jagdish Prasad (who had applied as an OBC
candidate) is concerned, he had secured 96 marks under the OBC
category, though in the examination held on 16th January, 2011. In
the OBC category, candidates who had secured 94 marks were
included in the merit list against 12 OBC vacancies. Thus, Jagdish
Prasad was included in the merit list for appointment to the post, in
question. No illegality has resulted to the petitioner by assignment of
the roll numbers in the examination conducted by the populace.
In these facts, the Tribunal has thus rightly concluded that no
person lower in merit, other than the petitioner in the general category
has been appointed to the post in question before us.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents
had not notified in the advertisement that the examination would be
conducted on two days. This has been necessitated purely on account
of circumstances noted by the Tribunal as well as by us hereinabove
and no prejudice thereby resulted to the petitioner nor any pointed out
despite specific query has been put to the learned counsel for the
petitioner in this regard.
15. For all these reasons, we find no merit in the writ petition,
which is hereby dismissed.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
MAY 28, 2014
rb
