Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar Vaswan & Ors. vs Commissioner Of Police & Ors. on 27 January, 2017
$~24.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 10748/2016
Date of decision: 27th January, 2017
RAJ KUMAR VASWAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Ms. Rekha Palli, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Punam Singh & Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Advocates.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, ASC & Ms. Sona
Babbar, Advocate for GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
The petitioners, eleven in number, in this writ petition have raised a
limited challenge. Their grievance is that the respondents are not
complying with the directions given in paragraph 16 of the impugned order
dated 16th July, 2016 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) whereby OA No. 1899/2016,
Raj Kumar Vaswan and Others versus Commissioner of Police and
Others and connected OAs were disposed of. Paragraph 16 of the order
dated 16th July, 2016 reads as under:-
"16. We also notice that earlier respondents had advertised
142 vacancies of the post of Head Constable (AWO/TPO).
Subsequently, this number was increased to 475 with further
stipulation that number of vacancies may undergo a change.
Under these circumstances, we dispose of this O.A. with a
direction to the respondents to consider whether additional
vacancies are available to appoint the applicants as well in
addition to those figuring in the revised merit list. We are
W.P. (C) No. 10748/2016 Page 1 of 5
conscious of the fact that there may be some other candidates in
between those figuring in the revised merit list and the applicants
herein. That number is not known to us. Such candidates would
also have to be appointed. Let the respondents examine and see
whether without violating the merit of the selection process the
applicants can be accommodated. This will, of course, be subject
to availability of vacancies. The respondents may do so within
next 08 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order. No costs."
2. The petitioners herein had applied for selection against 123 open
ureserved category and 184 open Other Backward Classes vacancies for
the post of Head Constable (AWO/TPO).
3. Selection or merit list of 381 candidates and an additional list of 15
candidates was published in December 2014. Police verification and
medical examination of these candidates was conducted in February and
April 2015. However, appointment letters were not issued. Subsequently,
on 30th September, 2015, additional list of 247 candidates, who had
qualified in the written examination, was published. This additional list
was published after the six questions were deleted and answer key to three
questions was changed. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has
referred to the said questions, which were deleted or the answer key of
which was changed and has affirmed the decision of the respondents. To
this extent, the petitioners have not challenged the decision of the Tribunal
during the course of arguments and have accepted the finding and view
expressed by the Tribunal. We record that the learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners has stated that in the rejoinder affidavit some
additional grounds have been raised, but she has instructions not to press
the same.
4. It is obvious that once the answer key of three questions was
changed and six questions were deleted, the petitioners herein would have
W.P. (C) No. 10748/2016 Page 2 of 5
to compete with the additional 247 candidates, who had qualified in the
written examination. The best and most meritorious, who had cleared the
written examination, would be selected. To this extent, we do not think the
petitioners can raise any grievance and question inclusion of 247
candidates, once they do not challenge and question the impugned order of
the Tribunal regarding six questions which were deleted and three
questions in respect of which answer key was changed. This is a necessary
sequitur once the petitioners accept the decision of the Tribunal to this
extent.
5. We would also reject the argument of the petitioners that they should
be given first preference and should be rated senior to the 247 candidates,
because their names were included in the first list published in December
2014. That would not be correct for the merit list should reflect the exact
and true merit position after we include 247 candidates, who were declared
successful. After clearing the written examination, candidates had to
appear for the trade test and typing test and thereafter the final select list or
merit list was published.
6. Now, we come back to paragraph 16 of the impugned order, which
records that in case there are vacancies and the selected candidates as per
the merit list do not join, those lower in the merit rank should be appointed.
The respondents have not challenged the said directions given by the
Tribunal and have to abide by the same.
7. On 11th November, 2016, we had issued notice in the writ petition
recording that the petitioners have given up challenge of other issues raised
before the Tribunal, and their grievance was that the vacancies in the
general open category were not being filled up. The order dated 11th
November, 2016 records the submission of the petitioners that 475
vacancies were advertised, but selection letters had been issued to only 376
candidates. The respondents were, therefore, asked to clarify.
W.P. (C) No. 10748/2016 Page 3 of 5
8. The respondents have filed affidavit dated 2nd December, 2016
wherein they have stated that 137 open unreserved category and 204 open
OBC category vacancies for the posts were advertised. The number of
vacancies for the open unreserved category and open OBC category was,
as per paragraph 8 of the affidavit, subsequently revised to 123 and 184,
respectively. However, the total number of posts advertised remained the
same. Accordingly, on the basis of the second merit or final list, 123 open
unreserved category and 184 open OBC category candidates were selected.
In addition, six candidates belonging to the open unreserved category and
nine candidates belonging to open OBC category were kept in the
additional or waiting list. Candidates in the additional list are to be
accommodated in case the open unreserved category or open OBC
category candidates do not join or for some other reason not appointed.
9. The petitioners on the other hand have referred to the reply dated
24th August, 2016 received by them under the Right to Information Act as
per which some of the selected open unreserved category candidates or
open OBC candidates have not joined.
10. Counsel for the respondents has obtained instructions and accepts
that 246 selected candidates have joined the training course. Some of the
selected candidates were declared unfit in the medical examination or have
not been issued appointment letters due to adverse police verification
reports. Petitioners submit that there have been self cancellation also.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, accepts that
they have not challenged the directions given in paragraph 16 of the order
dated 16th July, 2016 and would abide and comply with the same. We take
the said statement on record and would dispose of the present writ petition
on the basis of the said statement and reiterating the directions given in
paragraph 16 of the Tribunal's order dated 16th July, 2016.
12. We do acknowledge and would accept that the completion of the
W.P. (C) No. 10748/2016 Page 4 of 5
exercise in terms of paragraph 16 quoted above may take a little time as
some of the rejected candidates can challenge their rejection and may also
obtain stay orders. This would require a policy decision, by the
respondents in accordance with the guidelines issued by Department of
Personnel and Training. However, an expeditious and early decision in
such matters and in terms of the directions given in paragraph 16 is
desirable and always appreciated. It would curtail and prevent another
round of litigation.
13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
JANUARY 27, 2017
VKR
