Delhi High Court
Parveen Kumar Tyagi vs Chairman, Staff Selection ... on 29 February, 2016
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6426/2013
Date of decision: 29th February, 2016
PARVEEN KUMAR TYAGI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shanker Raju with
Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advs.
versus
CHAIRMAN, STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with
Ms. Pooja Mishra &
Ms. Manisha Saroha, Advs.
Mr. Peeyosh Kalra, ASC(Civil) with
Ms. Mahua Kalra, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Mr. Parveen Kumar Tyagi by this petition impugns the order
dated 26.02.2013 passed in OA No.3623/2009.
The petitioner had applied for selection and appointment as
Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police pursuant to
notification/advertisement published in Employment News dated
11.03.1994.
The petitioner's name did not figure in the list of selected
candidates declared by the Staff Selection Commission on 25.9.1995.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed OA No.1380/1996.
Several other non-successful candidates had earlier approached
the Central Administrative Tribunal against their non-selection and
order dated 26.7.1996 was passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal in OA No.2226/1995 and other cases. The question and
issues raised, reached the Supreme Court in SLP Nos.16356-
16358/1996. These SLPs were disposed of on 14.08.1997 in the
following terms:-
"We have heard Shri R.K. Jain, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Nos.16356-16358/96 and Ms. Mana
Chakraborty the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in S.L.P. (C) No.24653/96 and Shri
V.C.Mahajan, the learned senior counsel for the
respondents. The matters relate to selection for
appointment on the post of sub Inspector (Executive) in
Delhi Police. Shri Jain states that even after appointing
the selected candidates, a number of vacancies are still
available on which appointments can be made. Shri Jain
has pointed out that though the petitioners had obtained
the cut off marks prescribed for the purpose of
Personality Test (interview) they were not selected for
the reason that they failed to obtain the minimum
qualifying marks that were prescribed for Hindi in Paper
III after the Personality Test had been conducted. It is
submitted that in the merit list, as per the aggregate of
marks obtained in all the papers, the petitions are better
placed than the candidates who were selected by the Staff
Selection Commission. In the circumstances, it is directed
that in case vacancies are available for appointment on
the posts of sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police for
which the impugned selection was made, the respondents
may consider for appointment against those vacancies
the petitions and other similarly situated candidates on
the basis of merit as per the aggregate of the marks
obtained by them in all the papers and if on the basis of
such consideration it is found that the petitioners can be
so appointed the respondents shall appoint them against
the existing vacancies by relaxing the requirement of
minimum qualifying marks prescribed for Hindi in Paper
III. The special leave petitions are disposed of
accordingly." (emphasis supplied)
Relying upon the observations made in the aforesaid order,
contempt petition Nos.138-141 of 1998 were filed before the Supreme
Court, but were dismissed vide order dated 7th August, 1998 recording
as under:-
"In our opinion, no case is made out for taking
action for contempt of court. The contempt petitions are,
therefore, dismissed and the contempt notices are
discharged."
The contention raised before the Supreme Court in the
contempt proceedings was that the order dated 14.8.1997 had directed
the respondents to consider filling up posts against which there were
vacancies. However, the respondents had explained that there were
no vacancies in 1994 and their stand was accepted and therefore the
contempt petitions were dismissed.
It is in this context that we would like to refer to the decision of
the Division Bench of this Court dated 4.6.2010 in WP(C)
No.3281/2003 Virender Singh Panwar vs. Union of India & Anr.,
wherein identical issues had arisen. Dismissing the writ petition, it
was observed:-
"16. A further challenge laid before the Supreme
Court was dealt with in the order dated 14.08.1997
which itself makes it clear that the criteria of minimum
marks was not set aside but in view of the existing
vacancies observations were made that he respondents
may „consider‟ filling up all those posts by relaxing the
criteria for minimum marks on the basis of aggregate
marks obtained by the petitioners therein and other
similarly situated candidates like the petitioner. The
petitioner, in fact, sought to take advantage of this
direction and rightly so. However, the stand of the
respondents of absence of vacancies for 1994 was
accepted by the Supreme Court when the contempt
petition was dismissed and nothing survived thereafter.
The petitioner again claimed recruitment for vacancies if
any arising subsequently even in respect of candidates
who were originally recruited in 1994 when those
vacancies had been included for purposes of recruitment
for subsequent years. The select list cannot have an
indefinite period of validity.
17. The challenge laid by the petitioner was thus
on the basis of having been called for interview and thus
minimum marks not applying on the basis of Vijay Pal
Singh and Ors. V. UOI and Ors. case (supra) have no
basis.
18. Insofar as the last plea about the OA being first
allowed and then dismissed is concerned, all that is
apparent from the record is that originally some order
was sought to be passed but the matter was listed for
directions whereafter the finally signed order had been
made available and thus the same cannot be faulted.
19. In the end, there was one further plea raised
by the petitioner though not contended in the pleadings,
arising from a judgment by a Division Bench of this
Court in W.P.(C) No.7591/1999 Narendra Kumar & Ors.
v. UOI & Anr. decided on 22.09.2008. The petitioners
therein were identically situated as the petitioner herein
and after the written test had taken the physical test, but
were disqualified on the basis of lack of minimum marks
in Hindi language test. In the said judgment, it has been
pointed out that in the process of selection, out of 30
posts reserved for departmental candidates only 24 posts
were filled up. Thereafter, Vijay Pal Sngh and Ors. V.
UOI and Ors. case (supra) has been discussed. The
distinguishing fact mentioned in Narendra Kumar & Ors.
v. UOI & Anr.‟s case (supra) is that not only was the
original OA filed by the petitioner admitted but interim
directions had been passed that the posts to be filled in
were subject to final orders that may be passed in the
OAs pending before the Tribunal.
20. In terms of the judgment Vijay Pal Singh
and Ors. V. UOI and Ors.‟s case (supra), the petitioners
were entitled to appointment as to availability of posts
and those petitioners were declined appointment on the
ground that posts were not available since all of them
were filled up. It was, however, found that out of 30
posts reserved for departmental candidates, to be filled in
by direct recruitment, only 24 posts were actually filled
up and thus 6 posts in that category were available and
there were 6 petitioners before the Court in that matter.
The vital difference noted in that judgment is that unlike
Vijay Pal Singh and Ors. V UOI and Ors.‟s case (supra),
there was an interim direction in Narender case.
21. In our considered view, this judgment is of
little assistance to the petitioner who is identically
situated with petitioners in Vijay Pal Singh and Ors. V
UOI and Ors.‟s case (supra), and not like the petitioners
in Narendra Kumar & Ors. v. UOI & Anr.‟s case
(supra). It is undisputed that there were no interim
orders passed in the case of the petitioner before us while
the Division Bench has noted this very fact as the
distinguishing fact for issuance of directions for
appointment as compared to Vijay Pal Singh and Ors. V
UOI and Ors.‟s case (supra). Since appointments were
made subject to final outcome in Narendra Kumar &
Ors. v. UOI & Anr.‟s case (supra), the relief was granted
to 6 petitioners as there were 6 vacancies existing.
22. We are thus clearly of the view that not only
does the judgment in Narendra Kumar & Ors. v. UOI &
Anr.‟s case (supra), not support the case of the petitioner
but goes against the case of the petitioner as it seeks to
carve out a distinguishing feature from Vijay Pal Singh
and Ors. V UOI and Ors.‟s case (supra) which is not
present in the case of the petitioner herein who is
actually similarly situated as the petitioners in Vijay Pal
Singh and Ors. V UOI and Ors.‟s case (supra)."
The aforesaid quotation refers to the decision of the Delhi High
Court in the case of Narendra Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India &
Anr., WP(C) No.7591/1999 which was decided on 22nd September,
2008. In Virender Singh Panwar, the decision in the case of Narendra
Kumar (supra) was distinguished on two grounds. There was an
interim order passed by the Tribunal and the petitioners in the case of
Narendra Kumar (Supra) were departmental candidates who were
selected under 10% departmental quota. This selection under the 10%
quota was for 30 posts and only 24 posts had been filled up. There
were 6 vacancies and there were 6 petitioners. In these circumstances,
directions were issued in Narendra Kumar (supra) that the six vacant
posts should be filled up.
Thus, the factual matrix of Narendra Kumar (supra) is
distinguishable and at variance with the case at hand. The petitioner
herein is identically situated as the candidates who had filed contempt
petition Nos. 138-141 of 1998 before the Supreme Court and the
petitioners in the case of Virender Singh Panwar (Supra).
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present
writ petition and the same is dismissed. No Costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
FEBRUARY 29, 2016/ak
