AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Terdal, J
Heard Shri Anil Singal, counsel for applicants and Mrs. Sumedha Sharma, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by both the parties.
In OA the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"1. To direct the respondents to consider the applicant against 'UR Category' 155 vacancies for the post of SI (Ex.) in the Recruitment-2009 (Phase-II) in which he has qualified and appoint him to the post of SI (Ex.) with all the consequential benefits since he secured 161 marks more than the last "UR Category" candidate who was selected.
To quash and set aside the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 3 to 85 to the post of SI (Ex.) in Delhi Police in Recruitment-2009 (Phase-II).
To award costs in favour of the applicant and pass any order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem jut & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case."
The relevant facts of the case are that the recruitment process of 380 vacancies of 2009 (Phase-II) for Sub Inspector (Executive) -Male in Delhi Police was advertised in the Employment News on 5.11.2009. As per Rules, 10% vacancies (category wise) were reserved for departmental candidates. The applicant applied in response to the said advertisement for the post of Sub Inspector (Ex.)-Male. The result of the said recruitment process was declared and the final cut off marks (minimum qualifying marks) for departmental/UR category was 163 marks while the applicant had secured 161 marks only. Since the final cut-off marks (minimum qualifying marks) for departmental/UR category was 163 marks and the applicant had secured 161 marks, as such the applicant failed to make the grade in the final result. The entire recruitment process was completed in 2010 and unfilled vacancies had already been carried forward to the next recruitment year 2012. Even the final result of the recruitment process started in 2012 had been declared by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) on 6.03.2013. The present OA filed after lapse of 3 years in 2013 seeking the above stated relief.
In view of these facts, the counsel for respondents submitted that as the process is long over, the relief cannot be granted. The counsel for the respondents further brought to our notice the case of Hari Om Vs. Commissioner of Police and another (OA No.4266/2014), which is an identical case, which was dismissed by this Tribunal on 17.08.2015. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.10489/2015 vide order dated 18.05.2016.
The counsel for the applicant contended that in one OA of identically placed candidates relief was granted in 2012 by the order of this Tribunal in 2012. But, however, on closer scrutiny of para 21 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 5220/2012 (Rajender Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.) and other connected Writ Petitions it is clear that relief was given as the said OA was filed in 2010 and the applicant therein was enjoying the stay granted by the Tribunal staying the recruitment process, as such in that case though relief was granted in 2012, he had succeeded in his OA. But, however, in the present case the applicant has approached the Tribunal in 2013 when the entire recruitment process started in 2009 was over and even recruitment process of 2012 wherein the carry forward vacancies were considered was also completed in 2013. The counsel for the applicant further relied on the following judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court:
"(1) K.C.Sharma and Others Vs. Union of India and Others (1997)6 SCC 721)
(2) State of Karnataka and Others Vs. C.Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747)
(3) Union of India and Another Vs.Arulmozhi Iniarasu and Others (2011) 7 SCC 397)
But, however, in view of the peculiar facts of this case, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases do not come for the rescue of the applicant. Accordingly, we hold that OA is devoid of merit.
Accordingly, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
