Legal Manager
07 June 2012 at 14:27
Hello Sir/s
I would like to have your advise in below scenario.
In ongoing departmental/domestic inquiry if management representative submits statements of witnesses instead of deposition before I/O.
Is that valid in normal course and Whether his adverse findings can be proper in absence of no single deposition for misconduct committed?
Thank you for extending your help.
Regards
Meik
Uday
07 June 2012 at 00:39
Dear Sir,
I have joined my Org. on 16th Jan as an Accounts Manager & after thn alloted work of Merger of group companies.
However till date it has not been complete and I have been asked forcefully to resign otherwise the org. will terminate me.
I was on medical leave for 20 days in april and my salary was kept on hold till day has not yet been cleared.
Now i am left with no job I want to claim for my job or compensation for such termination.
Please guide me in this.
Aman Sah Aman
06 June 2012 at 13:24
Dear sir/madam,
I am going to join a public sector bank on July 2012. During the interview and written exam, I did not disclose that i have worked before. I had joined a bank in March 2009 and worked for just 1 month, and resigned without serving the notice period. I have not received any communication from my old bank. So due to lack of any letter, i did not disclose my work experience of 1 month in my new bank.
But in 2009 only, i became member of IIBF and cleared the Jaiib and Caiib exams. So if I use these certificates I will get increment in my new bank. BUt for that i have to show my 1 month experience. So, can it create any problem, since i suppressed informatioN?
narender
06 June 2012 at 12:29
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.
Swaminathan Mohan
06 June 2012 at 12:11
Sir,
I am Mohan from Chennai. I got appointed as Branch Manager based at Chennai for a leading distributor from B'lore 3 month before. 1st month salary I recd and after completion of 2nd month, they told me your services are not required without citing any reason.But even otherwise I have completed all the handing over procedures. But after that also,with so many reminders they are not settling my accounts. Kindly advise me how proceed further.
Rwgards,
S.Mohan
RAKESH KUMAR
06 June 2012 at 11:45
Sir,
my brother joined a Government of Indian Undertaking company in Feb-2011 as operator on the basis of his engineering diploma.
In offer of Appointment important points were.
-Training period will be of 3 to 6 months may be extended/curtailed on discretion of management.
-Stipend 10,000/- p.m.
-Bond period 3 years after successful completion of training.
-Management can terminate employment any time, without assigning any reasons.
-The candidate needs to handover Original certificates to company, till bond period over.
-They ask us to execute the bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) and hand over the Original certificate
The bond amount was very hues and some of the points were not clear hence we spoken to HR deptt. of company. The HRD replied that these conditions are common and not to worry. We urgently required people for operation and hence within three month training will be completed. After that the candidate will get good salary and perks.
Then we executed a bond for Rs 2,00,000/- (Two lakh) to complete 6 month training and 3 year service thereafter and handed over all original certificated to company. Similarly 5 more trainees joined in that batch.
After that real trouble start:
-The company doesnò´ ¨ave any training programme for these operators.
-After that till today 1 year 4 months completed the training period is not yet completed. (Appointment order only 3 to 6 months training and bond executed for only 6 month training).
-Even 4 trainees has completed 2 years training instead of 3 to 6 month there training also not completed.
-The company not giving back the Original certificate also.
Problem:
We donò´ «now when training will complete. All the trainees are mentally harassed. then no question of completion of bond.please inform
-How long 3 to 6 month training can be extended as per Indian government law.
-Whether this bond become VOID on extension of training.
-How to get original certificate back.
Please inform how to escape from this big trouble.
Regard,
Rakesh Kuamr
narender
05 June 2012 at 23:06
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/
narender
05 June 2012 at 22:56
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.
narender
05 June 2012 at 22:52
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 THEIR OPINION on the above matter and give me information regarding service rules and Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court or Hon’ble High Courts in support of my case.
Thanks.
COPY OF CAT ORDER
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/
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Esic benefits limit
Dear Sir,
Kindly send us a copy of the new tariff for spectacle cash claim form Local E.S.I. office.
With regards,
Mani