MANOJ KUMAR ROY Vs. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal") dated 6th February, 2013 ("impugned order"), in O. A. No. 214 of 2012 the petitioner has impugned it in this petition. The Tribunal declined the relief he sought, i.e. of directions being issued to the respondent Government of India, to allocate / appoint him in the Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Central Excise, Group A) ("IRS") in the OBC category of physically disabled "hearing impaired" candidate ("PDHI").

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that the notification for Civil Services Examination issued on 6th December, 2008, regarding 580 posts did not specify any seat being reserved for PDHI category candidates for the IRS. He applied in the exams in the PDHI category, but could not indicate any preference for the IRS, since no reservation for PDHI category was shown in the IRS vacancies at the time of issuance of the notification for the examination. In the provisional list of selected candidates, the service allocation was indicated on 12th August, 2010, but it did not show PDHI category candidates. A week thereafter, by a letter dated 19th August, 2010, the petitioner was intimated that he had been allocated Indian Ordnance Factories Service, Group A. The final service allocation list dated 10 th December, 2010, put up on the website of the DoPT, showed two persons lower in rank to the petitioner being allocated IRS, in the PDHI category. Prior to this pursuant to orders of the Tribunal dated 4th October, 2010 in another proceedings, another successful candidate, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Jha at merit rank 869, was allocated IRS. The order was successfully challenged by the Government before this Court, later on it was stayed by the Supreme Court on appeal. During the pendency of the said Special Leave Petition Shri Sanjeev Kumar Jha qualified for the IAS in 2010 and the petition became infructuous. The Petitioner claimed that being next in the Select List (i.e. Rank 870) immediately after Shri Sanjeev Kumar Jha, he ought to have been allocated the post instead of the candidate at serial no. 871, and other candidates, who were successively lower in the merit list rankings.

(3.) THE Tribunal noted that the petitioner relied upon the order passed by it in the case of Shri Sanjeev Kumar Jha, which however was later was set aside by this Court. The SLP against the High Court order was withdrawn as aforesaid but all questions of law were left open. The Tribunal further noted that the 580 vacancies indicated by the Government were only tentative and were likely to be revised; a prudent person ought to have kept this in mind in indicating service preferences. The Petitioner/Applicant was allocated the service he had sought (in order of merit) and the Government could not be faulted similarly treating other candidates as per their specified preferences below him in the order of merit.