Delhi High Court
Parveen Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission on 17 February, 2017
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12293/2015 & CM No. 32568-69/2015
Date of Decision : 17th February, 2017
PARVEEN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Advocate
versus
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC and Mr.
Sumant Bhushan, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
The petitioner- Parveen Kumar by this writ petition impugns
the order dated 29.10.2015 whereby OA No. 655/2015 filed by him
has been dismissed by the Principal Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal" for short).
2. The petitioner as a Scheduled Tribe candidate had appeared in
the Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) examination in the
year 2013 for recruitment to the post of Data Entry Operator (DEO)
and Lower Division Clerk (LDC). The advertisement required each
candidate to exercise their order of preference of Service/Organiation
(which also included various Ministries) to which they had sought
appointment. The petitioner's sixth option, as per the form, was the
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.
3. The petitioner had secured 114.5 marks in the examination
which, did not qualify him for his first, second, third and fifth options.
No post of LDC was available for his fourth preference, i.e.,
Department of Food and Distribution.
4. The petitioner was accordingly provisionally selected for his 6th
preference, i.e., Ministry of Road Transport & Highways.
5. The petitioner is aggrieved that his dossier along with dossiers
of 73 other qualified candidates was forwarded to the Border Roads
Organisation, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Seema Sadak
Bhawan, Delhi 110010 for appointment as LDCs. The petitioner
contends that the Border Roads Organisation to which he has been
nominated, consists of the Border Roads Development Board and the
General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF), which is
administratively a part of Ministry of Defence and not a part of
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. It is accordingly
submitted that the petitioner's dossier was wrongly forwarded to the
Border Roads Organisation.
6. The Tribunal has elaborately examined and rejected the said
contention.
7. To ascertain and re-examine the contention we had issued
notice to the respondent/Staff Selection Commission to clarify how
and why they had accepted the requisition for the post of LDC in the
GREF and treated it as a vacancy under the Ministry of Road
Transport & Highways. The Boarder Road Organisation and the
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways were impleaded as a party.
8. Border Roads Organization has filed their affidavit stating
recruitment to the posts of LDC in the said organisation were at the
relevant time under the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways. In
fact prior to 13.03.2015 requisitions for selection and appointments in
the Boarder Roads Organization were forwarded by the Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways to the Staff Selection Commission.
However, from 13.03.2015 recruitment for the said posts in the
Border Roads Organization is being made by the Ministry of Defence.
9. In view of the aforesaid, we do not think that the petitioner can
raise the grievance or challenge that the Ministry of Road Transport
and Highways should have recruited for the post of LDC in the
Border Roads Organization. This was an internal matter of the
Government and relates to administrative set up. The petitioner, we
would observe cannot question and seek negation of the said
administrative decision.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of
the Supreme Court in R.Viswan vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1983
SC 658. The issue involved therein was entirely different. The
Supreme Court observed members of the GREF were governed by
both the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1965 and the Army Act, 1956.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition has no merit and is
accordingly dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
FEBRUARY 17, 2017/b
