Deepak Kumar vs Chief Post Master General And Ors

Raj Vir Sharma, J

The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) to call for all the recruitment records and make discreet inquiries to know the true facts of the case;

(ii) to direct the Respondent to issue Appointment letter for the post of Postal Assistant, SBCO Delhi Circle, Delhi as SC candidate under the SC category, as the Applicant has already passed the examination held by the Department of Posts in SC category as per the merit;

(iii) to stay the process of both the recruitments issued by the respondents i.e. Department of Posts in the year 2011-2012 and 2013-2014;

(iv) To pass such other and further orders/directions which their lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case."

Resisting the O.A., the respondents have filed a counter reply. The applicant has also filed a rejoinder reply refuting the stand taken by the respondents.

We have carefully perused the pleadings of the parties as well as the Departmental file produced before us by the respondents, and have heard Mr.Ram Kawar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Dr.Ch.Shamsuddin Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

It has been contended by Mr.Ram Kawar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the applicant responded to the employment notification and offered his candidature as a Scheduled Caste candidate. He appeared as an SC candidate at the recruitment examination and was declared successful, although there was a minor mistake on his part by mentioning that he was an SC (PH) candidate while making the application for selection. Our attention has been drawn by Mr.Ram Kawar to column 22 (Fee Exemption) of the OMR application form where the applicant has claimed exemption from examination fee as an SC candidate. It has also been contended by Mr. Ram Kawar that the respondent-Department did not publish any merit list for SC (PH). The applicant was provisionally approved for appointment to the post of Postal Assistant in SBCO as an SC candidate and was asked to report for completion of pre-appointment formalities on 14.11.2013. After completion of the pre-appointment formalities, the respondent-Department, instead of issuing appointment letter to the applicant, issued a letter dated 2.4.2014 informing the applicant, inter alia, that he failed to produce the requisite certificate for Physically Handicapped II category on 14.11.2013; he did not fulfill the eligibility conditions prescribed for selection to the post under Physically Handicapped Category II; and that he having scored 45 marks did not stand in the select list of SC category for the post of Postal Assistant in SBCO wherein the last selected SC candidate scored 69 marks and the last SC candidate included in the waiting list of PA in SBCO for SC category scored 67 marks, and, therefore, his candidature/provisional selection/appointment for the post of PA in SBCO was rejected. Mr.Ram Kawar relied on the judgment dated 18.11.2015 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.28874 of 2015 (Union of India Vs. Guduru Raja Surya Praveen), the order dated 5.5.2017 passed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in OA NO.1022/2016, RA No.86/17 and MA No.1273 of 2017 (Darpan Sharma vs. Staff Selection Commission and others), and the judgment dated 10.8.2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. ( C ) No. 4829 of 2017 (Union of India and others vs. Sumit Kumar) to contend that the minor error committed by the applicant in mentioning that he was an SC (PH) candidate while applying for selection ought to have been ignored by the respondent-Department and appointment letter issued to him as he was selected as an SC candidate. Thus, it has been submitted by Mr.Ram Kawar that the respondent-Department has acted arbitrarily and illegally in not issuing the appointment letter to the applicant for the post of Postal Assistant in SBCO as an SC candidate.

Per contra, Dr.Ch.Shamsuddin Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has contended that it is not a fact that the applicant offered his candidature as an SC candidate. It is also not a fact that the applicant was selected as an SC candidate for appointment to the post of PA in SBCO. When the applicant admittedly scored 45 marks in the recruitment examination and the last selected SC candidate scored 69 marks and the last wait-listed SC candidate scored 67 marks, the contention of the applicant that he was selected as an SC candidate for appointment to the post of PA in SBCO being baseless is untenable. The applicant having applied for selection as an SC (PH) candidate and having failed to produce the Physically Handicapped Category II certificate at the time of verification of documents/completion of pre-appointment formalities, and further having given in writing on 14.11.2013 that he did not belong to SC (PH) category, his candidature/selection as an SC (PH) candidate were rightly rejected by the respondent-Department. As the applicant scored 45 marks in the recruitment examination and in view of the fact that the last selected SC candidate scored 69 mark and the last wait-listed SC candidate scored 67 marks in the recruitment examination, the question of his selection as an SC candidate did not arise. Therefore, the O.A. filed by the applicant, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

After having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, we have found no substance in the contentions of the applicant.

After perusing the materials available on record of O.A. and the departmental file which has been produced before us by the respondents, we have found that the applicant applied as an SC (PH) candidate. He did not produce the Physically Handicapped Category II certificate at the time of verification of documents/completion of pre-appointment formalities. Column 5 of the OMR application form is the appropriate column for the candidate to indicate the category to which he/she belongs. Column 22 of the said OMR application form relates to the information provided by the candidate indicating the category under which he/se claims exemption from payment of examination fee. The employment notification, vide paragraph 13, stipulated that the examination fee prescribed for all male applicants in General and OBC categories was Rs.400/-, and that the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Physically Impaired/Women were exempted from examination fee. In view of paragraph 13 of the employment notification, Column 22 of the OMR application form did not contain any clause "Scheduled Castes (PH)" as against which a candidate belonging to SC (PH) was required to claim exemption from examination fee, and that is why a candidate applying for selection as an SC (PH) candidate was required to claim exemption from examination fee under clause "SC" of column 22 of the OMR application form. In view of the fact that the applicant, vide column 5 of the OMR application form, clearly mentioned his category of candidature as "SC (PH)", the applicant cannot be allowed to claim that he applied for selection only as an SC candidate on the basis of his seeking exemption from examination fee as an SC candidate, vide column 22 of the OMR application form. In the above view of the matter, the candidature of the applicant as well as his selection as an SC (PH) candidate was rightly rejected by the respondent-Department. It has not been disputed by the applicant that he scored 45 marks, and that the last selected SC candidate scored 69 marks and the last wait-listed SC candidate scored 67 marks in the written examination. Therefore, his claim that he was selected as an SC candidate, besides being unfounded, is untenable. The decisions cited by Mr.Ram Kawar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, being distinguishable on facts, do not go to support the claim of the applicant.

In the light of our above discussions, we have no hesitation in holding that the O.A. is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. The interim order automatically stands vacated. All pending MAs are accordingly disposed of. No costs.