Pintu Kumar Das vs Union Of India & Ors.

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was employed with the Department of Posts and was serving on the post of Sorting Assistant when, on 19.04.2018, an examination notification was issued by the respondents for conducting a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for recruitment to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO) in the IP&TAFS Group ‘B’ cadre for the year 2018-19. Being fully eligible and desirous of appointment to the said post, the applicant applied for and participated in the said examination.

Learned counsel submits that the applicant belongs to the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category and had suffered double amputation of his legs and thighs due to an accident on the railway tracks. Being a PwD candidate, the applicant claims to be entitled to reservation in terms of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It is submitted that the LDCE was conducted for filling up a total of 1010 vacancies, out of which 777 vacancies were earmarked for the General category, 151 vacancies for the Scheduled Caste category and 82 vacancies for the Scheduled Tribe category. Learned counsel submits that the notification itself was defective inasmuch as no vacancy was earmarked for candidates belonging to the PwD category.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, despite there being no vacancy specifically earmarked for PwD candidates, the applicant was permitted to appear in the LDCE as a PwD staff candidate. The examination was conducted from 05.07.2018 to 08.07.2018. Thereafter, the merit list for the LDCE for appointment to the post of AAO for the year 2018-19 was published on 01.10.2018. Upon publication of the said merit list, the applicant came to know that he had secured 66 marks in Paper-I, 56 marks in Paper-II, 50 marks in Paper-III, 35 marks in Paper-IV, 85 marks in Paper-V and 86.5 marks in Paper-VI. Learned counsel submits that the applicant had secured more than the prescribed qualifying marks of 30% in each paper of the departmental examination.

Learned counsel further submits that the respondents were required to implement the mandate contained in the DOP&T O.M. dated 10.06.2009 as well as the subsequent O.M. dated 17.05.2022 relating to reservation in promotion for PwBD candidates, which was not done. It is contended that, had the aforesaid DOP&T O.Ms. been duly implemented, the applicant would have found a place in the merit list.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that reservation in promotion for PwBD candidates was implemented pursuant to the DOP&T O.M. dated 17.05.2022, whereas the issue raised in the present OA pertains to the LDCE conducted in the year 2018. It is further submitted that if the applicant was not satisfied with the manner in which the vacancies had been notified, particularly with the absence of any vacancy reserved for PwBD candidates, he ought to have challenged the notification at the appropriate stage. Having participated in the examination with full knowledge of the terms and conditions of the notification, the applicant cannot, after having failed to find a place in the merit list, challenge the very process in which he had participated. It is, therefore, submitted that the present challenge is not permissible in law.

We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

We are in agreement with the submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondents. It is indeed quite late in the day for the applicant to challenge the terms of the notification. The applicant had participated in the LDCE pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents and was fully aware that no vacancy had been earmarked for PwBD candidates. Having consciously participated in the selection process without questioning the terms of the notification at the relevant stage, the applicant cannot, after declaration of the result and upon not finding a place in the merit list, challenge the very process in which he had participated. Such a course is not permissible in law. The aforesaid principle is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari and Ors. vs. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127 and Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Ors. vs. State of J&K and Ors. (2023) 17 SCC 147.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, at this stage, we are not inclined to grant the relief claimed by the applicant in paragraph 8(2) of the OA. However, before parting with the matter, we would like to request the respondents to examine the case of the applicant, keeping in view the fact that he has suffered double amputation of his legs, and to consider whether he can be adjusted/considered against any suitable post which is in consonance with the nature and extent of his disability, in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions. As regards the relief claimed by the applicant in paragraph 8(3) of the OA seeking payment of full back wages for the period during which, according to him, his basic monetary dues were deducted from May 2007 till March 2023, stated to amount to ₹2,62,64,903/-, due to his accident and other circumstances, we clarify that we have not examined or adjudicated upon the said claim. The applicant shall be at liberty to agitate the said grievance before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.

It is accordingly clarified that the present adjudication is confined only to the relief claimed by the applicant in paragraph 8(2) of the OA.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the OA stands disposed of. All pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.