Rajesh Gora And Ors vs Uoi And Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 4486 Del

$~6
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         Date of hearing and order: 16th September 2014.

+   W.P.(C) 8514/2011
    RAJESH GORA AND ORS                  ..... Petitioners
                     Through: Mr. Ram Niwas, Advocate
                     versus
    UOI AND ANR                          ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
                          ORDER

%                           16.09.2014
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)

This petition has been preferred by these three petitioners, seeking

appointment to the post of Sub Inspector in Central Police Organisations

(CPOs) pursuant to the advertisement published by the respondent No. 2

in the Employment Newspaper of 9th October 2010, whereby they invited

applications from Indian citizens desirous of seeking appointment to the

post of Sub Inspector in CPOs. The petitioners being eligible had

submitted their respective applications for the said examination in the

category of OBC. All these petitioners were declared successful as per the

merit list drawn by the respondent No. 2 on the basis of the aggregate

marks obtained by them in the written examination, physical endurance

test and the interview. As averred in the petition, petitioner No.1 had

secured 223 marks, petitioner No.2 had secured 219.50 marks and

petitioner No.3 had secured 214.50 marks and were placed at S.No.1608,

1633 and 1493 respectively according to their roll numbers, in the list of

successful candidates.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the candidates in the OBC

category who had secured lesser marks than these petitioners were finally

selected and were recommended for appointment to the said post but the

names of these petitioners were missing from the final list, despite their

having secured higher marks vis-à-vis the last candidate in the category

of OBC recommended for appointment in the CPOs. Enumerating the

details of male candidates category wise and force wise, the last selected

OBC male candidate under BSF had secured 193.75; 223 in CISF; 195.25

in CRPF; 206.75 in ITBP; and 195.75 marks in SSB. With the help of

these details, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these

petitioners have secured higher marks than the last OBC candidates

selected in these para military forces.

The other grievance raised by the petitioners is that there were 108

male candidates, including these three petitioners, who had failed to

indicate their option of the CPOs as stipulated, in the preference column

in the application form and out of this list of 108 male candidates,

respondent No. 2 had illegally issued the revised list of 58 candidates for

their appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in the CPOs. As per the

case of the petitioners, they were placed higher in the merit list still their

names were not found even in the revised list of 58 candidates. It is also

the case of the petitioners that the Respondent had no right to introduce

any fresh criteria which was not provided or laid down in the terms and

conditions for recruiting Sub-Inspectors in the CPOs as were notified by

way of an advertisement.

On the contrary, the stand of the Respondents is that these

petitioners had not filled up the preference column in the application form

and thus failed to exercise their clear option to seek appointment to the

post of Sub-Inspector in a particular CPO, although this was clearly

indicated in the instructions given in the advertisement. It is also the stand

of the Respondents that the indication by the candidates was necessary in

order to ascertain the allocation to the post for which the candidate was

entitled to, as per their option and also considering their merit and the

preference for CPO indicated by them. Respondents also took a stand

that after the respondent No. 2 had finalised the select list, the unfilled

vacancies were still there, therefore in the public interest the decision to

fill the unfilled vacancies even from the lot of non selected candidates

(because of their not indicating any option or invalid or incomplete option

for CPOs in the relevant column of the form) was taken. It is also the

stand of the Respondents that they had released the revised list of 68 such

candidates out of which 58 were male and 10 were females. It is also the

stand of the Respondents that there were only 58 unfilled vacancies for

male candidates against the unreserved vacancies and all the 58

candidates who were selected from the unreserved category were higher

in merit than the marks secured by petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and so far as

petitioner No.1 is concerned, he was over-age to the vacancy under the

unreserved category.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable

length and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced

by them.

Indisputably, these petitioners failed to indicate their preferences

for CPOs despite the fact that clear instructions to this effect were laid

down in the advertisement published by the respondent No. 2 inviting

applications for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in CPOs, 2010.

The instructions as were notified also made it amply clear that the

candidates will not be allowed to change or revise their preference

afterwards and were thus, advised to indicate the preference for CPOs

carefully.

It is a clear case of failure on the side of the petitioners for not

indicating their preferences for the CPOs because of which they could not

find their names in the select list, despite their having qualified the

written examination, physical endurance test and interview. The

petitioners, thus, cannot be aggrieved by this as it is not the case of the

petitioners that the Respondents have included the names of those

candidates who had failed to indicate their preferences for CPOs but still

their names were found in the list of selected candidates.

Another grievance of the petitioners is that the Respondents could

not have introduced any fresh criteria to give passage to those candidates,

who had failed to indicate their preferences for CPOs in the absence of

any such criteria having been laid down in the notice dated 09.10.2010.

This argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cuts no ice

as it is not the case of the petitioners that the decision taken by the

respondents was arbitrary or unfair or that the same was taken with an

aim to give benefit to few as against other similarly placed candidates. In

fact, the petitioners have admitted this fact, that in all, there were 108

such candidates who were not selected because of blank option or invalid

option or incomplete option for the CPOs and there were only 58

vacancies for males under the unreserved category. These petitioners are

OBC candidates and if they are adjusted under the unreserved category,

then the petitioner No.1 was of over-age as on 02.11.2010 (the closing

date for receipt of application) in so far as the vacancy in the unreserved

category is concerned and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 do not make it as

their marks were low in merit than the last candidate selected in the said

unreserved category of the revised list.

In light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds no merit in the

petition filed by the petitioners and the same is accordingly dismissed

with no orders as to costs.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J

NAJMI WAZIRI, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 pkb