Delhi High Court
Sanjay Joshi vs The Chairman, Staff Selection ... on 23 March, 2016
Author: Hima Kohli
$~14 & 15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1153/2016
SANJAY JOSHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.C. Bhatt, Advocate.
versus
THE CHAIRMAN, STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (N.R.) &
ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Ruch Jain, Advocate with
Ms. Namisha Gupta, Advocate
+ W.P.(C) 1155/2016
NARESH SINGH BISHT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.C. Bhatt, Advocate.
versus
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate with
Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 23.03.2016
1. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are
residents of Uttarakhand, praying inter alia for directions to the respondent
No.1/Staff Selection Commission (in short 'SSC') to issue letters of
selection in their favour for undergoing basic training for the post of
Constable (GD) in CAPFs and Rifleman (GD) under the respondents No.2-
5, in response to an advertisement published by the respondent no. 1 in the
year 2011.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they had cleared the written
examination held on 05.6.2011 and had appeared for their medical
examination at Srinagar, Uttarakhand, where they were declared medically
unfit. They had appeared for their review medical examination at Srinagar,
Uttarakhand and were declared fit. It is submitted that having been declared
successful, the petitioners are entitled for being selected in the list published
on 02.06.2015.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent states that there were vacancies in
the border areas in Uttarakhand in only one CAPF, i.e., the SSB for which
the cut off was fixed at 57 marks, whereas the petitioner in W.P.(C)
1153/2016 had scored 53 marks and the petitioner in W.P.(C) 1155/2016
had scored 50 marks and as a result, they had both failed to make it on merit
for selection in the recruitment of the border areas of Uttarakhand as well as
in the general areas of the State. In this regard, reliance is placed on the
result write up issued by the respondent No.1/SSC with regard to
recruitment of Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF,CRPF and SSB, Examination-
2011 and counsel for the respondents states that insofar as Sashastra Seema
Bal is concerned, the State of Uttarakhand features at serial No. 34 where,
the marks of the last selected candidate in the unreserved category has been
mentioned as 57. It is thus stated that petitioners having failed to secure the
cut off marks as prescribed for the domicile State, they could not be
selected. She adds that the cut off marks for each CAPF as declared on
28.11.2011, had remained unchanged in each State for each category.
4. Learned counsel for respondents further draws our attention to the
order dated 04.09.2015, passed in W.P (C) No. 8447/2015 entitled Shishram
Muval & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (Annexure R-1), which pertains to
the very same selection, where the grievance of the petitioners therein was
that their names were wrongly excluded though they had secured higher
marks than one of the candidates, who had secured lower marks. The
petitioners therein had referred to an earlier decision of the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Vinay Kumar vs. UOI and Ors. in W.P.(C)
7651/2012 decided on 14.12.2012 and had prayed for directions to the
respondents to issue letters of offering appointment to them in view of their
merits position, as per the force opted for. However, turning down their
submission, it was observed by the Division Bench as follows: -
"4. Apart from the above, this Court is also of the opinion
that two other important circumstances have to be kept in
mind. As to whether a candidate who secures lower marks
than the other claims to be aggrieved or not has to be
examined not only in the light of the marks obtained but
also in the context of other circumstances, i.e., the
reservations claims of the successful candidates, the choice
of the force and the regions preferred by him. The details
and particulars disclosed in this case show that whilst four
petitioners opted for Rajasthan and one for Delhi, at the
same time, the selected candidates who they claim to be
lower in merit appear to have opted for other States. This is
evident from the averments made in paragraph 3 of the writ
petition. Secondly, and more importantly, this Court was
apprised during the hearing that after the selection
process was completed in 2011, further selection process
had been undertaken in 2012, 2013 and 2015 in respect of
specific vacancies. Whilst, this Court's general mandamus
and the respondents' obligations to give effect to it (refer
to Vinay Kumar's case) cannot be undermined, at the
same time, there has to be awareness that a recruitment
process has to attained closure at some point of time
otherwise it would be administratively impossible for the
concerned force to fix the vacancies in a given selection
year. Also the question of fitness of the candidates whose
review is sought or directed would have to be kept in mind
at the time he is appointed pursuant to the Court's
directions.
5. For all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the
present petition cannot be entertained and has to be
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches."
5. Even in the instant cases, the petitioners have approached the Court
after a lapse of five years reckoned from the date of the advertisement issued
by the respondents in February, 2011 and four and a half year from the date
of undergoing the Review Medical Board, without any plausible explanation
offered by them to justify the delay in seeking legal recourse. In the
meantime, three rounds of selection process have taken place in respect of
vacancies that have arisen after 2011. The matter relating to selection for
vacancies for the year 2011, cannot be left open for five years thereafter. It
is high time that the curtains be drawn on the said process. Further, even on
merits, it is apparent from the counter affidavit that the petitioners have not
secured marks that are above the cut off marks, indicated in the list.
6. In these circumstances, the present petitions are dismissed not only on
the ground of delay and laches, but also on merits.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MARCH 23, 2016
ap/mk
