Sandeep Singh vs Staff Selection Commission And Ors

Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)

The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following= reliefs:-

"a. Quash and set aside the impugned speaking order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the respondent;

b. DIRECT the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant as per the merit and to recruit the applicant for the said post, and

c. DIRECT the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant at par with the applicants in the case of Sumit Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and when the required qualification is fulfilled, as proposed in the advertisement (as detailed in the O.A.), passed/issued by the Respondents and/or keep one seat vacant as per candidate's top preference in the application form for the applicant till the final disposal of the OA.

d. DIRECT the respondent to recruit the applicant as per the top preferences made by the applicant in the application form.

e. DIRECT the respondent, should any difficulty arise in 2015, applicant may be recruited in year 2016 as per his merit."

Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the applicant applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) and Structural) pursuant to advertisement issued by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, Quantity Survey and Contract) vide advertisement dated 11.7.2015. He appeared in Paper-I examination held on 31.1.2016 which he has cleared with meritorious marks and the same made him eligible to sit in Paper-II of the said examination. Accordingly, on 24.7.2016, the applicant appeared in Paper-II examination held by the respondents in which, according to him, he scored more marks than the marks required for clearing the said exam.

2.1 However, the respondents rejected the candidature of the applicant on the ground of not ticking the subject on the answersheet vide order dated 25.1.2017. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection of his candidature, the applicant preferred Original Application, bearing OA No.4340/2017 before this Tribunal praying for direction to the respondents to consider his candidature, which was disposed of, vide Order dated 8.12.2017, by this Tribunal with the following directions:-

"2. In view of the above submission of earned counsel for the applicant, we direct the applicant to give fresh representation to the respondents making reference to the judgments passed in OA -215/2017 along with connected OAs. 263/2017 and 391/2017 by giving details, how this case is similar to the aforesaid OAs. Thereafter, the respondents are directed to decide the fresh representation of the applicant which he will submit, within a period of one month from the date of submission of such representation, under intimation to the applicant."

However, when the respondents had not complied with the aforesaid directions of this Tribunal, the applicant filed Contempt Petition No.202/2018 and thereafter the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 12.4.2018 and accordingly, the said CP was closed vide Order dated 16.7.2-018. Being aggrieved by Annexure A/1 impugned order dated 12.4.2018, the applicant has filed this OA for seeking the reliefs as quoted above.

Today when this matter came up for admission, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondents are discriminating as in some similar cases they had considered the candidatures of candidates. Counsel further submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking and unreasoned one as they have not dealt with the averments and grievance of the applicant in true letter and spirit.

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and have carefully perused the pleadings available on record. We have also carefully gone through the impugned order dated 27.4.2018.

We find that the impugned order dated 27.4.2018 is a non-speaking and unreasoned order as the reasons given by the respondents for not considering the case of the applicant are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Further the respondents have not dealt with the averments made by the applicant in his representation while passing the impugned order as directed by this Tribunal.

In this view of the matter, for the forgoing reasons, the impugned order dated 27.4.2018 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the representation of the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this OA along with this Order to the respondents.

The present OA is disposed of in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.