O.A. No. 3292/2012 and M.A. No. 2742/2012. Case: Pravesh Kumar Dabas, Brijesh Beniwal, Dharmendra Singh and Jitendra Kumar Vs Union of India, through Secretary (Revenue), The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs and The Secretary Department of Personnel and Training Ministry of Personnel. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 3292/2012 and M.A. No. 2742/2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Bhardwaj for Shri M.K. Bhardwaj and For Respondents: Shri Rajiv Kumar, Advocate |
| Judges | G. George Paracken, Member (J) and P.K. Basu, Member (A) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | May 02, 2014 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
P.K. Basu, Member (A), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
-
The applicants have qualified in the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2006 conducted by respondent no.4 under `general' category and were ranked in the merit list at position no. SLD/1019, SLD/1138, SLD/1145 and SLD/1014. Having qualified the examination of the post of Inspector, the applicants were asked to submit their option for allotment of zones. The zones were to be allotted as per preference given by the candidates, those having better marks were to be considered first as compared to those having lesser marks. The applicants state that if the respondents had gone by the principle of merit-cum-preference, the applicants would have got the zone of their first choice. However, they were allotted zones which were never their first choice. The applicants were issued appointment letters between September 2009 and October 2009 and they joined services without any delay between September 2009 and October 2009 itself. After joining they found that the respondents had not followed the principle of merit-cum-preference but in fact they followed a different criteria. What the respondents did was that those SC/ST/OBC candidates who qualified under `general' standards were given their choice zone against unreserved vacancies having better merit. According to the applicants, once they were selected as `general' category candidates, they could not have been treated as `reserved' class and adjusted against reserved vacancies in choice zone. Moreover, after this exercise, some of the reserved category candidates who did not come under their own merit, were given zone of choice over and above the applicants who were much senior to them in the merit list. They had made representations and moved this Tribunal as well and in compliance of the order, the applicants' cases have been considered and rejected by the order dated 3.07.2012. The applicants state that a similar matter had come up before this Tribunal in OA No. 403/2013, Jai Prakash and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors., decided on 22.04.2014. It is claimed that this case is fully covered by the judgment in the aforesaid OA.
-
The respondents in their reply have stated that the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC recommended against unreserved vacancies were to be adjusted against reserved vacancies if by doing so, they could get the zone of their higher preference. Thereafter, the candidates recommended against the vacancies reserved...
To continue reading
Request your trial