Reservation rules in govt. jobs
narender
(Querist) 05 June 2012
This query is : Resolved
I request the expert to kindly guide me and provide me information on the above subject. The brief facts of my case are as follows-
My wife applied for the post of Pharmacist (Homeopathy) in Health & Family Welfare Deptt, GNCT of Delhi under UR category. The opening date for the submission of application was 16/06/2008 & the closing date for same was 10/07/2008. As per the advertisement there were total 44 vacancies out of which 21 were unreserved and 23 were reserved (SC-05, ST-05 & OBC-13). The recruitment was conducted by DSSSB.
As per result notice dated 08/03/2010 my wife secured 112/200 marks in the selection exam. and was placed at 30th position/rank in the merit list. DSSSB provisionally selected 16 candidates in UR category and forwarded their dossiers to the user deptt. The result of 05 candidates was kept in abeyance as their dossiers were found deficient with the direction to the candidates to report to the office of DSSSB for the rectification of deficiencies. This was done up to the merit position 24 as 03 candidates up to the merit position 24 were ineligible. The candidates at merit position 25 & 28 were also ineligible for the post. The candidates at merit position 26 & 27 being belonging to OBC were selected against the seats reserved for OBC and both of them after completion of other requirements had joined their duties & currently working on them. The candidate at merit position 29 belongs to UR category.
In the meantime, out of 05 pending cases in UR category, the candidature of 02 candidates was rejected by DSSSB in Feb.11 because they were found ineligible for the post & out of 16 provisionally selected candidates in UR category; the candidature of 02 candidates was cancelled by user deptt. as the certificate related to essential qualification was found bogus in 01 case & candidate had not reported to the user deptt for the completion of other essential requirements in another case.
On dated 10/02/2011 the user deptt. wrote to the DSSSB to forward the dossiers of 02 more candidates from the UR category from the waiting list / merit list on account of cancellation of candidature of 02 candidates by user deptt. but no response was given by DSSSB in this regard.
My wife gave representation to the DSSSB to consider her candidature for the post but no action was taken by DSSSB.
Aggrieved by the inaction of DSSSB we approached the CAT, Principal Bench, N. Delhi to consider the claim of my wife for the post against one of the 04 unfilled vacancies in UR category. Hon’ble CAT disposed the O.A. on 20/10/2011 by directing the DSSSB to forward the dossiers of 02 UR category candidates according to the merit and as per rules. Copy of Hon’ble CAT order is hereby enclosed.
Consequently DSSSB approached Delhi High Court with writ petition and managed to get stayed the implementation of CAT order. In the writ petition DSSSB claimed that since as per the directions of Delhi Govt. no waiting list was maintained by DSSSB it is not possible for them to consider the claim of my wife as per CAT order against unfilled vacancies in UR category and further at any case this will be done than at that stage the entire result required to be reprocessed and the candidates who were at serial no. 26 & 27 in the merit list and who were earlier selected against seats reserved for OBC category and because they were earlier not selected against UR seats due to the non-availability of seats in UR category shall be migrated / adjusted against 02 UR seats as per CAT order and in these circumstances my wife will not get any relief. Now writ petition is pending before Hon’ble High Court.
My queries are as follows-
1. That after joined and currently working against OBC category seats can OBC category candidates be adjusted / migrated to UR seats on the basis of their merit in selection exam. which became available on the later stages of recruitment process due to the reason that some of the provisionally selected candidates in unreserved category found ineligible for the post.
2. Where and how the question of not maintaining the waiting list arises when some of the provisionally selected candidates were found ineligible for the post and on what basis DSSSB can adjust ineligible candidates against vacancies.
3. Can DSSSB disturb or modify the arrangement which was working for more than one year and where both the OBC category candidates have not make any objection for their selection against OBC seats and not against UR seats.
4. Whether or not DSSSB have any legal right to reprocess the result & change the selected category of candidates who had already joined against a particular category.
5. Since the Hon’ble CAT give relief against only 02 unfilled vacancies as per the demand of user deptt. and not against 04 unfilled vacancies, can my wife put her claim for the post against 04 unfilled seats in the Hon’ble High Court?
I request the experts to provide me information regarding service rules and Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court or Hon’ble High Courts in support of my case.
Thanks.
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-738/2011
New Delhi this the 20th day of October, 2011.
Hon ble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Hon ble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Mrs. Rajni,
W/o sh. Narender Kumar,
R/o H. No. 176, Pocket-7,
Block-8, Sector-4,
Rohini, Delhi-85. .. Applicant
(through Sh. M.S. Reen, Advocate)
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others : through
1. The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Players Building,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Chairman,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board (DSSSB),
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-92.
3. The Secretary,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board (DSSSB), Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-92.
4. The Director,
Directorate of ISM and Homeopathy,
A & U, Tibia College,
Karol Bagh,
Delhi-5. . Respondents
(through Ms. Alka Sharma, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No. 3 to sponsor the applicant s name for appointment on the post of Pharmacist (Homeopathy) she has filed the present O.A. seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) That this Hon ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this Original Application and direct the respondents no. 2 & 3 to consider her case for appointment for the post of Pharmacist (Homoeopathy), post code 001/08 without any discrimination.
(ii) That this Hon ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this application and direct the respondent no. 2 to take a decision to fill up 04 un-reserved vacant vacancies as per merit list dated 8.3.2010 declared by the respondents no. 2 & 3 from the UR category without any discrimination.
(iii) That any other or further relief which which this Hon ble Tribunal may be deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant.
2. In response to the advertisement of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) for recruitment to the post of Pharmacist (Homeopathy) under Post Code No. 001/08, the applicant applied for appointment under unreserved quota. The advertisement Notice of 001/08 mentioned about availability of 44 vacancies out of which 21 were unreserved, 13 were reserved for OBC, 05 for SCs and 05 for ST candidates. It is the case of the applicant that she had qualified in the test held by DSSSB and her position was at Serial No.30 (page-35 of the scrutiny report in respect of applications received). It does not indicate that there was any deficiency in respect of her application. The DSSSB declared the results of the test in their Notice dated 08.03.2010. It also brought out the comparative merits of the candidates which indicate that the applicant, a general category candidate, had secured 112 marks and was placed at serial No. 30 as per her merit.
3. However, detailed scrutiny of the applications made subsequently revealed that a number of candidates placed higher in the merit list either were not eligible or had not submitted the requisite certificates. Further, the department itself had also rejected a number of candidates. Besides, many OBC candidates having scored higher marks were being considered under general category. For these reasons the last person recommended and appointed was one Prashant Singh at Serial No.24. The candidates at Serial Nos. 25 to 28 belong to OBC category. There was only one candidate at Serial No. 29 Yudhvir Singh belonging to general category who remained ahead of the applicant. Since all the vacancies could not be filled up, the user department, namely, the Directorate of ISM & Homeopathy wrote to the DSSSB in their letter dated 08.02.2011 to recommend names of three candidates (two UR and 1 SC for appointment for the post of Pharmacist (Homeopathy). These facts are narrated in the preliminary submission of the counter-reply itself.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the DSSSB should have recommended two names of general candidates on the basis of their position in the merit list to the user department as per their requisition. Since the applicant is at No.2 position in the waiting list her name is bound to be recommended for consideration of the appointing authority, but, unfortunately no action has been taken by the Board.
5. We do not find any averment of the respondent, which contradicts the facts submitted by the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents was strenuously trying to argue that the applicant did not satisfy the eligibility criteria, but no such averment is forth-coming in the counter-reply. On the other hand, the scrutiny paper at page-34 does not reveal any deficiency in respect of her application. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that if the subsequent requisition of the user department is to be considered, then two OBC candidates Ms. Suman Verma and Ms. Amit Kumar at Serial No. 26 and 27 respectively of the merit list will have to be selected in UR category instead of under OBC category. Their appointment under UR category was not allowed earlier in view of the availability of limited vacancy in UR category.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant, in reply, submits that both the candidates Ms. Verma and Ms. Kumar had taken advantage of relaxation available to OBC candidate. Therefore, they could not be considered under UR category.
7. We find that there is a requisition for recommending names of two UR category candidates and one SC candidate, which is yet to be acted upon by the Board. It is not the case of the respondents that a fresh selection process has been initiated so as to invalidate the panel which was prepared in respect of Post Code No.01/08. In these circumstances, the decision of the Board not to take any action to sponsor names from the waiting list of the panel prepared by them is not appreciated.
8. In the circumstances, the respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to sponsor names of 2 UR category candidates and 1 SC candidate out of select list of eligible candidates available with them on the basis of their respective merits in accordance with Rules within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. The OA is disposed of in terms of aforesaid directions. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/vinita/
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 25 August 2012
Who has time to read all this on this chartiable forum what is your qury.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 25 August 2012
Agree with Sudhir Kumar :
Advised : condense Query in 10 Lines
Guest
(Expert) 25 August 2012
Any casual consultancy based on limited facts, as per your own interpretations may not be helpful to you. You therefore need to get personal consultancy from some services law expert near your place by producing all the related documents of the case, so that he may arrive at the conclusions after examining the contents of the douments.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 01 September 2012
You have already started a number of threads repeating the query :-
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/reservation-in-Govt-jobs--315071.asp
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/reservation-rules-in-Govt-jobs-311756.asp
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/reservation-rules-in-Govt-jobs-311671.asp
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/reservation-rules-in-Govt-jobs-311666.asp
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/reservation-rules-in-Govt-jobs-311651.asp
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/reservation-rules-in-Govt-jobs-311646.asp
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/reservation-rules-in-Govt-jobs-305361.asp
