Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2469 (DEL)

Rajesh Gora v. Uoi

2014-09-16

KAILASH GAMBHIR, NAJMI WAZIRI

body2014
Judgment : Kailash Gambhir, J. (Oral): This petition has been preferred by these three petitioners, seeking appointment to the post of Sub Inspector in Central Police Organisations (CPOs) pursuant to the advertisement published by the respondent No. 2 in the Employment Newspaper of 9th October 2010, whereby they invited applications from Indian citizens desirous of seeking appointment to the post of Sub Inspector in CPOs. The petitioners being eligible had submitted their respective applications for the said examination in the category of OBC. All these petitioners were declared successful as per the merit list drawn by the respondent No. 2 on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by them in the written examination, physical endurance test and the interview. As averred in the petition, petitioner No.1 had secured 223 marks, petitioner No.2 had secured 219.50 marks and petitioner No.3 had secured 214.50 marks and were placed at S.No.1608, 1633 and 1493 respectively according to their roll numbers, in the list of successful candidates. The grievance of the petitioners is that the candidates in the OBC category who had secured lesser marks than these petitioners were finally selected and were recommended for appointment to the said post but the names of these petitioners were missing from the final list, despite their having secured higher marks vis-à-vis the last candidate in the category of OBC recommended for appointment in the CPOs. Enumerating the details of male candidates category wise and force wise, the last selected OBC male candidate under BSF had secured 193.75; 223 in CISF; 195.25 in CRPF; 206.75 in ITBP; and 195.75 marks in SSB. With the help of these details, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these petitioners have secured higher marks than the last OBC candidates selected in these para military forces. The other grievance raised by the petitioners is that there were 108 male candidates, including these three petitioners, who had failed to indicate their option of the CPOs as stipulated, in the preference column in the application form and out of this list of 108 male candidates, respondent No. 2 had illegally issued the revised list of 58 candidates for their appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in the CPOs. As per the case of the petitioners, they were placed higher in the merit list still their names were not found even in the revised list of 58 candidates. As per the case of the petitioners, they were placed higher in the merit list still their names were not found even in the revised list of 58 candidates. It is also the case of the petitioners that the Respondent had no right to introduce any fresh criteria which was not provided or laid down in the terms and conditions for recruiting Sub-Inspectors in the CPOs as were notified by way of an advertisement. On the contrary, the stand of the Respondents is that these petitioners had not filled up the preference column in the application form and thus failed to exercise their clear option to seek appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in a particular CPO, although this was clearly indicated in the instructions given in the advertisement. It is also the stand of the Respondents that the indication by the candidates was necessary in order to ascertain the allocation to the post for which the candidate was entitled to, as per their option and also considering their merit and the preference for CPO indicated by them. Respondents also took a stand that after the respondent No. 2 had finalised the select list, the unfilled vacancies were still there, therefore in the public interest the decision to fill the unfilled vacancies even from the lot of non selected candidates (because of their not indicating any option or invalid or incomplete option for CPOs in the relevant column of the form) was taken. It is also the stand of the Respondents that they had released the revised list of 68 such candidates out of which 58 were male and 10 were females. It is also the stand of the Respondents that there were only 58 unfilled vacancies for male candidates against the unreserved vacancies and all the 58 candidates who were selected from the unreserved category were higher in merit than the marks secured by petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, he was over-age to the vacancy under the unreserved category. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by them. 2 and 3 and so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, he was over-age to the vacancy under the unreserved category. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by them. Indisputably, these petitioners failed to indicate their preferences for CPOs despite the fact that clear instructions to this effect were laid down in the advertisement published by the respondent No. 2 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in CPOs, 2010. The instructions as were notified also made it amply clear that the candidates will not be allowed to change or revise their preference afterwards and were thus, advised to indicate the preference for CPOs carefully. It is a clear case of failure on the side of the petitioners for not indicating their preferences for the CPOs because of which they could not find their names in the select list, despite their having qualified the written examination, physical endurance test and interview. The petitioners, thus, cannot be aggrieved by this as it is not the case of the petitioners that the Respondents have included the names of those candidates who had failed to indicate their preferences for CPOs but still their names were found in the list of selected candidates. Another grievance of the petitioners is that the Respondents could not have introduced any fresh criteria to give passage to those candidates, who had failed to indicate their preferences for CPOs in the absence of any such criteria having been laid down in the notice dated 09.10.2010. This argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cuts no ice as it is not the case of the petitioners that the decision taken by the respondents was arbitrary or unfair or that the same was taken with an aim to give benefit to few as against other similarly placed candidates. In fact, the petitioners have admitted this fact, that in all, there were 108 such candidates who were not selected because of blank option or invalid option or incomplete option for the CPOs and there were only 58 vacancies for males under the unreserved category. In fact, the petitioners have admitted this fact, that in all, there were 108 such candidates who were not selected because of blank option or invalid option or incomplete option for the CPOs and there were only 58 vacancies for males under the unreserved category. These petitioners are OBC candidates and if they are adjusted under the unreserved category, then the petitioner No.1 was of over-age as on 02.11.2010 (the closing date for receipt of application) in so far as the vacancy in the unreserved category is concerned and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 do not make it as their marks were low in merit than the last candidate selected in the said unreserved category of the revised list. In light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds no merit in the petition filed by the petitioners and the same is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.