KAPIL KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a direction that he should be offered appointment to any Central Police Organisations. He had participated in the selection process pursuant to an advertisement dated 30.5.2009, by which applications were invited for competitive examination to fill up vacancies on all India basis to the post of sub-inspectors in Central Police Organisations. The total number of unreserved vacancies were 1091 at the relevant time. The petitioner argues that he secured an aggregate of 304 marks and was clearly entitled to be included in the select list. However, he also highlights the fact that the last cut off marks for each of the participating CPOs was lower than 304. In CISF the cut off marks was 295, in CRPF it was 284 and in BSF it was 281. His candidature was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not indicated the choice of service as a result of which the SSC, in accordance with the instructions, would consider the applicant's case after considering all others. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the concerned stipulation in the advertisement, which reads as follows:

(2.) It is argued that the above condition nowhere empowers the authorities to reject the application altogether, specially when the candidate secured more marks then the cut off for the relevant service in the same category. In any event counsel argued alternatively that the petitioner should have been considered for vacancies which not only existed in the relevant year, but also in the succeeding years 2010-2011. Counsel sought to rely upon the fact that in the subsequent advertisement too a number of vacancies went unfilled. Counsel lastly submitted that the petitioner was misled into believing that before approaching the Court, he should await the decision of the authorities on the representations made by him. This Court has considered the submissions and also notice that he had approached another lawyer earlier but the said counsel did not take any steps to approach the Court. Counsel relied upon the copy of the complaint made to the Delhi Bar Council in this regard of the concerned lawyer. This Court has considered the submissions. It is evident that the Petitioner was made aware of the condition contained in Clause 21 which did not unambiguously reject the candidature but gave him limited right of consideration of his case as against the unfilled vacancies which the authorities could assign to candidates who had not given their preferences in the first instance. There is no doubt that the Petitioner has performed better than at least three candidates which were selected and given appointment on the basis of same common entrance examination in the unreserved category.

(3.) In that sense, the Petitioner's grievance is appears to be justified. However, this Court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances that the recruitment examination took place in 2005 and the results were declared in the same year. Thereafter appointments were made in relation to the vacancies. Apparently, in the successive years too advertisements were issued which notified vacancies that included he vacancies which had remained unfilled. On account of these subsequent events, rights accrued in respect of the vacancies that were advertised in the later recruitment years for which the other candidates had applied and were selected. Some were undoubtedly entitled to be treated in a manner similar to the Petitioner and in all probability might have been assigned one service or the other on account of the aforesaid condition in Clause 21.