Vinod Kumar (UR), Group – ‘c’ vs Staff Selection Commission & Others

Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)

The applicant is working as Constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police since 09.01.2010. The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued recruitment advertisement-2013 for the post of Sub Inspector (SI) (Ex.) in Delhi Police and also in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF). It was mentioned that Delhi Police employees will also be considered as "Departmental Candidates" for 10% quota reserved for them if they have more than 05 years of continuous and regular service as on the closing date i.e. 12.04.2013. The applicant applied for the post of SI (Ex.) under "UR open category" on 04.04.2013 as per the advertisement, but did not tick mark against "Departmental Category" as on that date as he was not having 05 years of regular service in Delhi Police.

The SSC, thereafter, issued a corrigendum dated 09.04.2013 in the recruitment advertisement of 2013, whereby the minimum required regular service in Delhi Police for being considered as departmental candidate was reduced from 05 years to 03 years. The contention of the applicant is that with this corrigendum, he also became eligible for being a departmental candidate. He was, however, not considered so and despite having secured 254.25 marks against the cut off of 239 marks for "Delhi Police Departmental Candidates" he was not selected for the same and was selected as SI in CISF. He has also submitted that later on category of a few candidates was changed from "CAPF" to "Delhi Police Departmental Candidates". The present OA has been filed by the applicant challenging the action of the respondents in not allotting him to Delhi Police under "Departmental category".

The applicant has submitted that modification issued vide corrigendum dated 09.04.2013 in the advertisement, whereby the eligibility criteria for a departmental candidate for Delhi Police was reduced from 05 years of regular service to that of 03 years automatically makes the applicant eligible and he should have been accordingly considered as a "departmental candidate" in Delhi Police.

Respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the applicant was selected for the post of SI in CISF against the notice of 16.03.2013 and that he has failed to file the OA within the stipulated time and is filing the same after a gap of several years and, therefore, the present OA be dismissed on grounds of delay and latches. In this connection they have also relied upon certain judgments. In their counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the Commission published Notice of SI in Delhi Police, CAPFs & ASI in CISF vide notice dated 16.03.2013. The applicant, a constable in Delhi Police, applied for the said examination as "UR Open category candidate". He did not apply as a "Departmental Category candidate" as there was a stipulation in the Notice of the impugned examination that in order to be eligible for the departmental vacancies of Delhi Police, one must have rendered 05 years of regular service in Delhi police and he had completed only 03 years of service in Delhi Police.

However, certain amendments were made and a corrigendum was issued to the notification on 09.04.2013, whereby the minimum required regular and continuous service in Delhi police for being considered as departmental candidate was reduced from 05 to 03 years. The applicant participated in the examination and was selected for the post of SI in CISF. However, he was not selected for Delhi Police as a departmental candidate as he had not applied under the category of "Departmental Candidate". It is also stated that when the corrigendum dated 09.04.2013 was issued the closing date of receipt of applications was also extended from 12.04.2013 to 19.04.2013. In the original notice dated 16.03.2013, it was clearly mentioned in Point No. 9 under 'Important Instructions to Candidates' that "Only a single application will be entertained. IN CASE OF MULTIPLE ONLINE APPLICATIONS, THE LAST APPLICATION FOR WHICH PART-1 AND PART -II REGISTRATION HAVE BEEN COMPLETED WILL BE ACCEPTED".

Thus, the applicant who had submitted the online application for the examination, had the opportunity to re-apply as a "Departmental Candidate" even after issue of corrigendum dated 09.04.2013, but he did not do so. Therefore, the applicant was rightly considered under "UR Open Category" and not under "UR Departmental category" by the Commission.

We heard Mr. Anil Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Yadav and Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

The applicant was a Constable in Delhi Police and participated in selection for SI in Delhi Police and CAPF. The applicant had applied on 04.04.2013 under "UR Open Category" for the post of SI (Ex.) as he did not have the regular and continuous service of 05 years in Delhi Police. Thereafter, the SSC issued a corrigendum dated 09.04.2013 making various amendments in the main advertisement. Vide this corrigendum age relaxation permissible to different category of candidates was also modified. Item 05 of the corrigendum reads as under:-

(v) Age relaxation permissible to different category of candidates mentioned under codes 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35 in Para 4(B) of the notice is modified as under:-

"Departmental Male/Female candidates for Delhi Police Only:-Departmental candidates-Male/Female (unreserved, OBC & SC/ST) who have rendered not less than 3 years of regular & continues service in Delhi Police as on closing date can avail age relaxation beyond upper age limit upto 30 years (for unreserved-category code 30) 33 years (for OBC-category code 31) & 35 years (for SC/ST -categories code 32) respectively."

It is thus obvious that the relaxation for being a departmental candidate was modified from regular and continuous service of 05 years to that of 03 years vide this corrigendum. The applicant who had already applied on 04.04.2013 before the corrigendum was issued, however, did not re-apply under "Departmental Category" for which he had become eligible vide this corrigendum to the advertisement notice. He was selected in "UR Category" as SI in CISF. His contention that his candidature should have been automatically considered as "Departmental Candidate" is not tenable as in view of Point No. 9 mentioned in the advertisement notice dated 16.03.2013.

The applicant obviously had an opportunity to re-apply as a "Departmental Candidate". However, he did not take this opportunity and realised the same after his selection. It is also a fact that this OA has been filed by the applicant in 2019 whereas the results have been declared in the year 2014. In a catena of judgments, Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Apex Court had ruled that the conditions laid down in the recruitment advertisement, details furnished and dates of submission, etc. are sacrosanct and no relief can be granted to such candidates after prolonged periods as this may cause serious distractions to the selection process and also may have far reaching ramifications on number of other candidates whose results would be adversely affected. In the present OA, the applicant has obviously failed to re-apply in the "Departmental Category" and, therefore, he had not been selected in that category but in "UR Category" correctly for which he had applied initially.

We do not find any infirmity or illegality on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the OA being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.