PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed impugning the order dated 31.07.2014 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A. No.618/HR/2013, whereby, the Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Through the Original Application the petitioner had challenged the action of the respondents in not recommending his name for appointment as Central Excise Inspector.

(2.) The Staff Selection Commission (Respondent No.2) issued a Public Notice dated 19.03.2011 for conducting Combined Graduate Level Examination for recruitment to various posts under the Government of India. The examination was to consist of two Tiers - a written type objective examination followed by Computer Proficiency Test/Interview/Skill Test where ever applicable. The petitioner/applicant who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category submitted his application form for the said examination. In the written examination, he secured 322.75 marks. He was called for interview on 24.10.2011 wherein he secured 41 marks. The total marks secured by him were 363.75. The applicant was not recommended for appointment though five candidates having lesser marks than him namely, Sumit Kumar, Gagandeep Raj, Pardeep Tanwar, Deen Dayal Bairwa and Bheekh Chand were recommended for appointment as Central Excise Inspectors in the States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala. On his representation, he was informed that he had not been recommended for appointment as he had submitted his option for States of Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh whereas the candidates named by him had opted for the States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala. He was also informed that no candidate lower in merit than the petitioner had been appointed in the States where the petitioner had given his option. Aggrieved, he filed the Original Application.

(3.) The case of the respondents was that the petitioner had opted only for the States of Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh where he did not qualify. He could not be considered for appointment in the States where he did not opt. Reference was made to Clauses 12 and 15 of the advertisement/Notice Inviting applications dated 19.03.2011. Clause 12 reads as under: