Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 845 (ALL)

PRABHAKAR v. DIRECTOR, STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, (MADHYA KSHETRA), 8A-B, BELI ROAD, ALLAHABAD

2013-03-15

RAJES KUMAR

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishnaji Shukla, learned Standing Counsel, Union of India, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that in pursuance of the advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Constable in Seema Suraksha Bal (in short ‘SSB’). It is the case of the petitioner that in the process of recruitment for the said post, he has been subjected to physical test and when he was found qualified, he was issued admit card to appear in the written test. When he was found successful in the written test, he has been further subjected to medical test wherein also he was found medically fit, but in the final list of selection, he has not been nominated and has not been sent for training. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Counter and Rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. 4. In the Counter-affidavit, following has been stated: 5. That the Staff Selection Commission published advertisement for recruitment of Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF & SSB-2011. This was a three tier examination having Physical Efficiency Test (PET) followed by written examination and Medical Examination. Candidates are required to qualify in all the three parts of the said examination. It was very clearly mentioned in para-2 of the Important instructions to the candidates, the notice of the said examination “In view of the anticipated large number of applicants, scrutiny of the eligibility and other aspects will not be undertaken before the PST/PET and Written Examination and, therefore, the candidature will be accepted only provisionally. Candidates are advised to go through the requirements of educational qualifications, age, physical standards etc. and satisfy themselves that they are eligible for the post before applying. Copies of supporting documents will be sought only from those candidates who qualify for the medical examination. When scrutiny is undertaken after the written examination, if any, claim made in the application is not found substantiated, the candidature will be cancelled and the Commission’s decision in this regard shall be final.” It is also very clearly mentioned in NOTE of para 10 “The candidates applying for the examination should ensure that they fulfil all the eligibility conditions for admission to the examination. Their admission at all the stage of the examination will be purely provisional, subject to their satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions. If, on verification, at any time before or after the written examination and interview, it is found that they do not fulfil any of eligibility condition, their candidature for the examination will be cancelled by the Commission.” 6. That the final result of the candidates appeared in Medical Examination was declared on 28.11.2011 and the petitioner was declared provisionally qualified for the said examination subject to verification of eligibility as per the requirement of notice of the said examination. 7. That it was very clearly mentioned in the write up of result declared on 28.11.2011 that “The lists are provisional subject to verification of their eligibility and verification of state of Domicile or domicile in Border District/Naxal and Militancy affected districts of candidates in select List who have been allotted concerned vacancies”. The relevant page of notice of the examination published in employment news/Rozgar Samachar dated 5.2.2011 and the write up of the result declared on 28.11.2011 is being enclosed herewith as Annexure-1 & 2 to this affidavit. 8. That during the scrutiny of the document of finally selected candidates before forwarding the names to user department for issue of offer of appointment, it was detected that the result of PET is not available in the dossier of the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that Staff Selection Commission conducted recruitment for constable examination for the first time in the year 2011 and approximately Nine Lacs Candidates applied for the said examination from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, which come under the jurisdiction of Central Regional Office of Staff Selection Commission at Allahabad. 9. That as the large number of candidates applied for examination, the services of Data Processing Agency (Private Agency) was hired for entering the date of candidates appeared in PET. However, at the time of data entry of candidates, who has appeared in PET/PST a mistake was occurred and instead of ‘N’ (Not Qualified), ‘Q’ (Qualified) was entered against the name of the petitioner. Accordingly, Admission Certificate was issued to the petitioner for appearing in written part of the examination followed by Medical Examination. 10. That after detecting the discrepancy, the result of the petitioner was sought from the CAPF, where the PET/PST of the petitioner was held. Accordingly, Admission Certificate was issued to the petitioner for appearing in written part of the examination followed by Medical Examination. 10. That after detecting the discrepancy, the result of the petitioner was sought from the CAPF, where the PET/PST of the petitioner was held. As per the details of the events of PET/PST provided by the CAPF, the petitioner is “Not Qualified” in PET/PST (1st stage of Examination). As he failed to qualify in Race which is essential part of the recruitment and he has not appeared in other events as he failed in Race. The relevant part of the copy as provided by the concerned CPO is enclosed herewith as Annexure 3 to this affidavit. 12. That in that result also ‘N’ is mentioned against the name of the petitioner which clearly proves that the petitioner is failed to qualify in PET/PST. 14. That as per the result provided by the CAPF, petitioner is failed to qualify in PET/PST and it appears that petitioner is fully aware with the fact about disqualification in PET/PST, but he appeared in subsequent stage of examination by concealing the correct fact. It is pertinent to mention here that a copy of result of PET/PST has also been provided to all those candidates, who appeared in the PET/PST. 18. That the contents of para Nos. 11 to 14 of the writ petition are not correct, hence denied. It is submitted that the candidates appeared in the examination were very clearly cautioned in the Notice of the examination that due to large number of candidates, scrutiny of the eligibility and other aspects will not be undertaken before the written examination and candidature is accepted only provisionally and when scrutiny is undertaken, if any, claim made in the application is not found substantiated, the candidature will be cancelled and the Commission’s decision shall be final. Accordingly, at the time of verification of documents and genuineness of the candidates, it was detected that the petitioner was failed to qualify in Race which is essential part of PET/PST (1st stage of examination). Therefore, petitioner was issued memorandum with a direction to submit his documents and photocopy of the candidates copy of PET result. It is pertinent to mention here that all those candidates who appeared in PET/PST were given a copy of PET/PST result for future use in the said examination. Therefore, petitioner was issued memorandum with a direction to submit his documents and photocopy of the candidates copy of PET result. It is pertinent to mention here that all those candidates who appeared in PET/PST were given a copy of PET/PST result for future use in the said examination. It is also submitted that petitioner appeared before the Commission and submitted his documents but failed to submit candidate’s copy of PET/PST result which proves that the petitioner has not been declared qualified in PET/PST. 5. In the Rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner has denied the averments made in the counter-affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Column F of the notice issued by the Staff Selection Commission, relating to the recruitment, provided that the Staff Selection Commission will be making recruitment to the post of Constables (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF and SSB and the recruitment process will consist of height bar, prescribed race, physical standard test, physical efficiency test, written examination and medical examination. Only the candidates declared qualified in the physical standard test and the physical efficiency test will be called for written examination scheduled to be held on 5th June, 2011. Based on the performance in the written examination, the candidates will be shortlisted for medical examination in a ratio as may be decided by the Commission. Therefore, only those candidates would be called for written examination, who have qualified physical standard test and physical efficiency test. In case, if the petitioner would not have qualified physical standard test and physical efficiency test, he would not have been permitted to appear in the written examination. Since the petitioner has been permitted to appear in the written examination, it implies that he was successful in the physical standard test and physical efficiency test. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that unless the candidate qualifies all the tests, that is, physical standard test, physical efficiency test and further the written examination and the medical test, he cannot be selected. In the notice of the examination, under the heading ‘Important Instructions to the Candidates’ in paragraph 2, it was clearly stated that the result would be provisional and shall be subject to final verification and scrutiny. In the notice of the examination, under the heading ‘Important Instructions to the Candidates’ in paragraph 2, it was clearly stated that the result would be provisional and shall be subject to final verification and scrutiny. In the case of the petitioner, during the scrutiny of the documents of the finally selected candidates before forwarding the names to the user department for issuance of offer of appointment, it was detected that the result of physical efficiency test is not available in the dossier of the petitioner. Since a large number of candidates applied in the examination, services of a Data Processing Agency was hired for entering data of candidates appeared in PET/PST. However, at the time of data entry of candidates who have appeared in PET/PST, a mistake was occurred and instead of ‘N’ (Not Qualified), ‘Q’ (Qualified) was entered against the name of the petitioner. Accordingly, Admission Certificate was issued to the petitioner for appearing in written part of the examination followed by Medical Examination. It is submitted that in the physical efficiency test, though the petitioner qualified for height, but when he was subjected to race, he did not qualify and, therefore, he has not been allowed for further physical efficiency test, namely, Chest Unexpanded, Weight in Kg, Long Jump and High Jump and in the result such columns were left blank. The datewise result of PST and PET, which is annexed alongwith the counter-affidavit, reveals that in the column of the final result, the word ‘N’ is shown, which means ‘Not Qualified’. The copy of the result is appendix ‘A’ to the short counter-affidavit and also annexed as Annexure-3 to the detailed counter-affidavit. He further submitted that all the candidates who appeared in PET/PST were given a copy of the result for future use in the examination. When it has been detected that the petitioner has not qualified in PST/PET, the first stage of the examination, the petitioner was issued a memorandum with a direction to submit his documents and candidate’s copy of the PST/PET result, which he failed to produce even such copy of the result and furthermore said copy of the result could not be placed before this Court also. 8. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record. 9. It will be pertinent to refer some of the Clauses of the Notice, which reads as under: Clause 2. 8. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record. 9. It will be pertinent to refer some of the Clauses of the Notice, which reads as under: Clause 2. In view of the anticipated large number of applicants, scrutiny of the eligibility and other aspects will not be undertaken before the PST/PET and Written Examination and, therefore, the candidature will be accepted only provisionally. Candidates are advised to go through the requirements of educational qualification, age, physical standards, etc. and satisfy themselves that they are eligible for the posts, before applying. Copies of supporting documents will be sought only from those candidates who qualify for the Medical Examination. When scrutiny is undertaken after the Written Examination, if any claim made in the application is not found substantiated, the candidature will be cancelled and the Commission’s decision in this regard shall be final. F. No. 3/2/2011-P&P. The Staff Selection Commission will be making Recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF and SSB and the recruitment process will consist of Height Bar, Prescribed Race, Physical Standards Test, Physical Efficiency Test, Written Examination and Medical Examination. Only candidates qualifying in Physical Standards Tests and Physical Efficiency Tests will be called for the Written Examination, scheduled to be held on 5th June, 2011. Based on performance in the Written Examination, candidates will be shortlisted for Medical Examination in a ratio as may be decided by the Commission. NOTE : The candidates applying for the examination should ensure that they fulfil all the eligibility conditions for admission to the examination. Their admission at all the stages of examination will be purely provisional, subject to their satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions. If on verification, at any time before or after the written examination and interview, it is found that they do not fulfil any of the eligibility conditions, their candidature for the examination will be cancelled by the Commission. 10. A bare reading of Clause 2 shows that the candidature of a candidate has been accepted provisionally and it has been mentioned in the notice that during the course of scrutiny, after written examination, if any claim made in the application is not found substantiated, the candidature would be cancelled and the Commission’s decision in this regard shall be final. A bare reading of Clause 2 shows that the candidature of a candidate has been accepted provisionally and it has been mentioned in the notice that during the course of scrutiny, after written examination, if any claim made in the application is not found substantiated, the candidature would be cancelled and the Commission’s decision in this regard shall be final. Note further provides that the candidates applying for examination should ensure that they fulfil all the eligibility conditions for admission to the examination. Their admission at all the stages of examination will be purely provisional, subject to their satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions. If on verification, at any time before or after the written examination and interview, it is found that they do not fulfil any of the eligibility conditions, their candidature for the examination could be cancelled by the Commission. 11. It is true that in Column ‘F’, it is provided that only candidates qualifying in Physical Standards Tests and Physical Efficiency Tests will be called for the Written Examination, but if after the written examination and medical examination, it has been detected that the petitioner has not qualified, the physical efficiency test, it cannot be implied that the petitioner qualified in such test, unless it is proved by documents that he qualified such physical standard test and physical efficiency test. In the counter-affidavit, it is specifically stated that a copy of the physical efficiency test is provided to the candidate also and as such when it has been detected that the petitioner has not qualified in PST/PET, the first stage of the examination, the petitioner was issued a memorandum with a direction to submit his documents and candidate’s copy of the PST/PET result, which he failed to produce. In this Court also, the petitioner could not produce such copy of the result to establish that he qualified in the race and has been further subjected to other physical efficiency tests, namely, Chest Unexpanded, Weight in Kg, Long Jump and High Jump. No contrary material has been produced by the petitioner to dispute the case of the respondent. 12. In view of the above, I am of the view that the petitioner’s claim for selection has no merit and is liable to be rejected. No contrary material has been produced by the petitioner to dispute the case of the respondent. 12. In view of the above, I am of the view that the petitioner’s claim for selection has no merit and is liable to be rejected. However, I am also of the view that since Clause ‘F’ provides that only candidates qualifying physical standard test and physical efficiency test will be called for written examination, the Commission should remain more cautious and careful in future in calling upon only those candidates who have qualified in the physical standard test and the physical efficiency test. Calling upon those candidates for written examination, who have not qualified in the physical standard test and physical efficiency test, leads to harassment to such candidates, which should be avoided. Since in the present case, the petitioner has been mentally and physically harassed, I am of the view that the petitioner should be compensated by awarding cost, which I assess at Rs. 25,000/= (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). 13. In the result, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The respondent is directed to pay the cost of Rs. 25,000/= (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the petitioner within a month. ——————