Kapil Singh Negi vs Union Of India And Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 4159 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of Decision: 04.09.2014

                         +       W.P.(C) 3781/2014

       KAPIL SINGH NEGI                                     ..... Petitioner
                     Through:          Mr. Rishi Kapoor with Mr. Pankaj
                                       Kapoor and Mr. Parijat Kishore,
                                       Advocates

                             Versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS                ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC with
                              Mr. H. Nunpuii, Advocates.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI


NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the decision dated 28.12.2013 taken by the office of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Ministry of Home Affairs whereby the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Head Constable (Tele.) was cancelled.

2. The respondents, in May, 2013, vide Recruitment Notice for Telecom Cadre- 2013-14 had advertised and invited applications from Indian male citizens for recruitment to various posts including the post of

_____________________________________________________________________ __

Head Constable (Telecommunication) in the Sashastra Seema Bal, a central armed police force under the Ministry of Home Affairs. The minimum educational qualification for the post of Head Constable (Tele.) was matriculation or equivalent plus two years ITI Certificate in Electronics or Intermediate or 10+2 with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics from a recognized board or institution or equivalent and the age limit was 18 to 23 years.

3. Clause 6 of the advertisement required that as on the cut off date i.e., 20.06.2013, the candidates must fulfil all eligibility conditions and should be in possession of all certificates. Since the petitioner had passed his class 10+2 examination in March 2013, he applied for the post of Head Constable (Tele.) with a copy of his result downloaded from the internet but duly attested. His application was accepted by the Application Receiving Centre (ARC), Lucknow and thereafter, was allotted his Admission Roll Number. After receiving his admit card in June, 2013, he received his original marks sheet from his school on 11.07.2013. Having passed the written examination, the petitioner was called for medical test on 30.11.2013 which too he cleared. However, vide the impugned letter, he was informed that since his original mark sheet was issued after the last date of receipt of the application, he would not be eligible for the post of Head Constable (Tele) and his candidature was accordingly cancelled. His representation to the Nodal Officer, ARC, Telecom Cadre, SSB, Lucknow seeking explanation in the matter was replied to in the same vein as the aforesaid impugned cancellation letter. The petitioner's letter of

_____________________________________________________________________ __

07.02.2014 to the Chairman, RRB met with the same fate.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner was called for Physical Efficiency Test (PET) on 23.10.2013, he was required to submit the original mark sheet which he did since he was already in possession of the same which was issued by his school on 11.07.2013. It was duly accepted by the Board. He appeared for his written examination on 4th of November, 2013 and was declared successful on 10th of November, 2013 and he further qualified his final medical test on 30.11.2013. He further submits that the petitioner had met the basic eligibility conditions for appearing in the written examination and he maintained it till such time when he was required to submit his original mark sheet. He submits that the action of the respondents is arbitrary; the grounds taken by them are frivolus, baseless, most objectionable and illogical in denying employment to the petitioner who is otherwise duly qualified for recruitment with the SSB. He submits that it took some time to procure the original mark sheet since it was for the school to prepare and deliver it to the petitioner and procuring it earlier was beyond the reach of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly states that the impugned letter would have to be read in moderation.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined Clause 6 of the advertisement which reads as under:

"CUT OFF DATE FOR AGE AND RELAXATION IN UPPER AGE LIMITE:

_____________________________________________________________________ __

Cut off date for determining the age will be 20-

06-2013. The candidate must fulfil all eligibility conditions and should be in possession of all certificates on 20-06-2013 i.e. the last date of receipt of application. ... ... ... "

7. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid Clause is only to ensure that as on 20.06.2013, the candidate ought to have qualified in the matriculation examination. It would be at best construed to be an assurance that the criteria spelt out in the recruitment notice were met by the candidates. Insofar as the petitioner had qualified in his intermediate examination 2013 and was otherwise in possession of all other certificates, he had duly met the eligibility criteria. If a candidate meets all the eligibility criteria but is not in possession of the documentary evidence in that regard which are to be issued by someone else and it were not done so by the cut off date or was done after the cut off date, surely, it cannot be held against the candidate because procurement of such documents may have taken time after declaration of the results. Such candidate cannot be blamed or suffer adversely because of the circumstances beyond his/her control. It is also undisputed that the petitioner had submitted his original mark sheet well before his selection process started i.e., before the written examination and therefore, to insist that the candidate should be in possession of the said document as on 20.06.2013 is not only illogical but wholly unreasonable because the document was to be issued by some other authority i.e., the school of the petitioner. The petitioner could not have done any better than that.

_____________________________________________________________________ __

In the circumstances, the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature is unreasonable and unwarranted. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.12.2013 is quashed. The petitioner shall be appointed to the post of Head Constable (Telecomunnication), Sashastra Seema Bal with all consequential benefits, since he stood qualified for the post. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

SEPTEMBER 04, 2014/acm

_____________________________________________________________________ __