Dhirendra Singh vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan

Nita Chowdhury, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By filing this OA, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-

"A. That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 call for the records of the case including appointment order of the respondent no. 3 an hold and declare that the applicant is eligible for the post of TGT (Maths), and quash and set aside the impugned reserve panel list placed at Annexure A/1 dated 23.03.2017 (to the extent of selection of respondent No.3) with consequential effect of quashing of appointment of respondent no.3.

B. That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to reexamine the issue of preparation of select list for the post of TGT (Maths) and accordingly respondent no.2 be adjusted against the vacancy in UR category and further to consider the name of the applicant against the reserved post of the OBC category for the post of TGT (Maths) for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16 and to provide all consequential benefits including seniority and back wages from the date of joining of the other selected candidates.

C. Pass such other order(s) or direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

Brief facts of the case as stated in the OA are that in pursuance of advertisement No.10 dated 23-29 May, 2015 issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) for filling up the officers' cadre, Teaching, Miscellaneous Teaching and Non-Teaching Posts for the years 2014-15 a 2015-16,the applicant had applied for the post Code 25 (TGT (Maths)) under OBC category through online mode. On 9.9.2016, the respondents KVS declared the final result for the post of TGT (Maths) and issued appointment letter to successful candidates and total 18 candidates were selected under the OBC category. On 23.3.2017, KVS declared the list of candidates to the post of TGT from reserved panel. On 2.5.2017, the applicant made representation to the respondent no.1 against his non-appointment under OBC category. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the reliefs as quoted above.

The grievance of the applicant in this case is that he was not empanelled in the select list under the OBC category as Shri Ramesh Kumar (Respondent No.2) had successfully cleared the written test and interview with 74 marks out of total marks weightage (100) and was placed at sl. No.46 after final merit list and the said respondent no.2 was appointed under OBC category. and when two candidates of general category did not join the said post, the said respondent no.2 should have been adjusted against the vacancy in UR category rather than issuing appointment letter to respondent no.3 (Ritu Goyal) against the vacancy in UR category as the respondent no.2 had secured more marks than the respondent no.3, i.e., last general category candidate. The respondent no.2 with higher percentage of marks was not included in the general category although the said respondent no.2 has not availed any relaxation under reservation rules. The applicant has made representation to the official respondent agitating his grievance but the same has not been decided by the official respondent.

Pursuant to notice issued to the respondents, respondent no.1 - KVS has filed reply in which it is stated that respondent issued an advertisement no.10 in the employment news dated 23-29th May, 2015 for teaching and no-teaching posts. For the post of TGT (Maths) 70 posts (UR-38, OBC-18, SC-09 and ST-05) was advertised. The written test for the post of TGTs was conducted in the month of October 2015. On the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the written test and cut-off marks fixed by the competent authority of KVs, the candidates were shortlisted for interview. The interview for the post of TGT (Maths) was conducted in the month of July, 2016 at Bangalore centre.

38 candidates in UR, 18 candidates in OBC, 09 candidates in SC and 05 candidates in ST category were selected for the post of TGT (Maths) in KVS. The cut-off marks of selected candidates for the post of TGT (Maths) were as under:-

UR - 74.17, OBC-68.83, SC-70.42 and ST-59.5

5.1 The name of the applicant is not placed in the main panel under OBC category due to not having obtained 68.83 marks in the written test and interview, as he obtained 67.75 marks in the written test and interview. His name is placed at Sl No.1 in the reserved panel of TGT (Maths) under OBC category. Respondent No.2 (Ramesh Kumar) has obtained 74.00 marks out of 100 marks and the name of Respondent No.2 is appearing at Sl. No.5 in the main panel of TGT (Maths) under OBC category. The last candidate of UR category whose name has been empanelled in the main panel of TGT (Maths) has obtained 74.17 marks. If any candidate does not join the post from main panel, the offer of appointment has been issued to the candidates from reserve panel of the respective category. First two candidates who does not join the post of TGT (Maths), the offer of appointment has been issued to Sh. Dipanshu Gupta and Ritu Goyal from reserve panel of general category whose names are placed at Sl. No.1 and 2 at reserve panel under general category. The select panel of TGT (Maths) was prepared as per DOP&T OM dated 1.7.1998. As such the allegation of the applicant that the name of respondent no.2 should have been adjusted against the vacancy in UR category does not arise.

The applicant has also filed his rejoinder, besides reiterating the contents of the OA and denying the contents of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.1, has stated that aforesaid DOP&T OM dated 1.7.1998 has not been followed in true letter and spirit by the respondent no.1, as according to the applicant, the said OM provides that only when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting a reserved candidate, for example in the age limit, experience, qualification, permitted number of chances in written examination, etc., such candidates will be counted against reserved vacancies otherwise in direct recruitments to Central Government jobs and services, the reserve category candidates who are selected on the same standard as applied to general candidates will not be adjusted against reserved vacancies.

During the course of hearing counsel for the applicant reiterated his stand as taken in the OA and rejoinder. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that admittedly the applicant did not come within the cut off of OBC category candidates for the post in question and his name was placed in the panel at Sl. No.1 against OBC category candidates. When two candidates did not join from UR category, two more candidates in the panel of UR category have been issued appointment letters. All the 18 posts of OBC category candidates have been filled and there is no vacant post under OBC category. So far as contention of the applicant that Shri Ramesh Kumar should have been considered under UR category is concerned, counsel for the respondents has categorically submitted that by applying the provisions of DOP&T OM dated 1.7.1998, the case of said Shri Ramesh Kumar has been considered under OBC category and one Shri Nikhil Kumar who belongs to OBC category was considered against UR category vacancy.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material placed on record, this Court does not find any illegality in the action of the respondents as the respondent's categorical stand that they have considered the case of respondent no.2 in accordance with the provisions of OM dated 1.7.1998 and the applicant has not placed on record anything contrary to the same, except to say that the said Shri Ramesh Kumar has not availed any relaxation under reservation rules. If that be the situation, the respondent no.1 would have also dealt with the case of said Shri Ramesh Kumar as that of Shri Nikhil Kumar as they have stated in the reply given to the applicant to his Application filed under RTI Act at page 52 of the paperbook. It is an admitted fact that applicant has not disputed the placement of his name in the panel under OBC category and has knowledge that two persons, who were later on given appointment letters, were at the top in the panel of UR category candidates consequent upon non-joining of two UR category candidates. All the vacancies of OBC category have been filled up and there is no vacancy available under OBC category of the post in question.

So far as contention of the applicant that the respondent no.2 (OBC category candidate) should have been considered against UR category is concerned, admittedly the Respondent no.2, who belongs to OBC category, had scored 74. 00 marks and his name was mentioned in the main panel at Sl. No.5 under OBC category and was given offer of appointment after finalization of merit list and as such there is no illegality in the action of the respondents considering the said Respondent No.2 under OBC category candidate.

In the result, and for the foregoing reasons, the instant OA being devoid of merit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.