Vinod Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission And Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The Delhi Police initiated steps for appointment of SI(Executive), in the year 2013. The selection was entrusted to the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). 330 vacancies were notified and out of that, 10% are reserved in favour of Ex-servicemen. Within that 10%, half are earmarked for Ex-servicemen, mostly from Commando category. The applicant was one of the candidates under that category and belongs to OBC. 16 persons were appointed but the applicant was not among them. On verification by him, it emerged that the last candidate under OBC category of Ex-servicemen Commando, was the one who secured 154.75 marks whereas the applicant secured 133.25 marks. He filed this OA with a prayer to direct the respondents to select him for the post of SI in the Ex-servicemen, Commando category, (OBC).

The applicant contends that he possessed all the requisite qualifications and though he secured quite good number of marks in the process, he was not selected. He further states that in the information procured by him, by filing applications under RTI, it emerged that several candidates, who did not possess the requisite qualifications at all, were selected and appointed, in preference to him.

The SSC filed a counter affidavit stating that the selection was made strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and after verification of the certificates of the candidates. They have also furnished a table, indicating the marks secured by the last candidates selected under different categories for the post of SI and the marks secured by the applicant. They denied the various allegations made by the applicant. The second respondent has also filed counter affidavit, almost on the same lines.

The OA was taken up for hearing on several dates. The applicant has also filed a miscellaneous application for the production of records as well as for impleading some of the selected candidates.

Today, we heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Sh. R.S. Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. S.M. Arif and Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, learned counsel for the respondents, in detail.

The applicant responded to the notification issued for the post of SI (Executive) under the category of Ex-servicemen. The method of reservation in favour of the Ex-servicemen is as under:

"Out of10% quota meant for Ex.Servicemen, 50% of such quota will be reserved for the following categories:-

(i) Having served in the Special Force NSG (Special Action Group)

(ii) Having received a QI "Qualified Instructors" grading in the commando course.

(iii) Officers from the Navy/Air Force who have worked in the specialized commando type units."

The applicant states that, he is from the category of Commandos. Obviously for that reason, he expected selection under the 50% within 10%. By the time the OA was filed, 16 candidates were selected and appointed in that category. In the OA, the applicant referred to two candidates, namely, Rakesh Kumar and Jatan Singh and alleged that they are not qualified. In the counter affidavit, the respondents stated that those two persons are from the ordinary Ex-servicemen, and Commando category.

The applicant is harping upon some information said to have been furnished to him, in reply to an application filed under the Right to Information Act. Nowadays, instances are galore, wherein half hearted questions are put in the applications and when the information commensurate with the questions is furnished, inferences are drawn. It is only when the accurate information is placed before the Tribunal, that too, by impleading the concerned party, that a possibility would exist for adjudication of the matter effectively.

The OA discloses the manner, in which the applicant was undertaking a roving inquiry into the entire selection process, Notwithstanding the manner in which the applicant is pursuing the proceedings, we would have certainly gone into the detail, had it been a case where, the applicant would stand to benefit if the selection of the named persons is set aside. It has already been mentioned that the last selected candidate in the Commando Ex-Servicemen OBC category secured 154.75 marks whereas the applicant secured 133.25 marks. The difference is almost 20 marks. In a stiff competition, candidates miss the selection just with a fraction of a mark. We have also seen the record, placed before us, by the respondents and do not find any lapses. The OA has virtually assumed the character of a writ of quo warranto, since the applicant is nowhere near the benchmark.

We do not find any merit in the OA and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.