PARSOON MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

CWP/3703/2015

AI Insights

Parsoon Mehta, the petitioner, had participated in the Combined Graduate Level Examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and was recommended for appointment as Inspector in the Department of Posts based on his scores. He later sought to be considered for a position as Inspector (Central Excise), arguing that he had scored higher than some candidates who were appointed in that department. The SSC and the respondents contended that appointments were made based on merit-cum-preference, and Mehta did not meet the cut-off marks for the Inspector (Central Excise) position. The Tribunal and subsequently the High Court dismissed his application, affirming that there was no provision to alter the cut-off marks post-selection.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 744632 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: G S BAL; MANJU SHARMA
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Staff Selection Commission; Inspector (Central Excise); Merit-cum-preference; Cut-off marks

Judgement Text

"CWP No.3703 of 2015 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3703 of 2015 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 PARSOON MEHTA ...PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DARSHAN SINGH. 1. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. G.S.BAL, SR.ADVOCATE WITH MS. MANJU SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. M. JEYAPAUL, J. 1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the his application filed before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short 'Tribunal') seeking a direction to respondent No.3-Staff Selection Commission to forward his dossier/claim for appointment as Inspector (Central Excise) and consequently, directing respondents No.l and 2 to appoint him as against his selection, the writ petitioner Parsoon Mehta has preferred the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner appeared in Combined Graduate Level Examination conducted by Staff Selection Commission for appointment to the post of Inspectors in various Departments of Government of India including Department of Central Excise and Department of Posts. The writ petitioner qualified in the selection by securing 407 marks and his name was SUMIT GULATI 2015.09.09 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.3703 of 2015 -2- recommended by Staff Selection Commission to the Department of Posts for appointment as Inspector vide order dated 9.6.2011. 3. The writ petitioner submitted a representation to the Staff Selection Commission for recommending his name for appointment in Central Excise as he secured more marks than other appointees in the Department of Central Excise. The writ petitioner approached the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.1335-PB of 2011, in which a direction was issued to the respondents to ascertain the options offered by a candidate from the relevant record and dispose of the same in accordance with merit. The request of the writ petitioner was declined. 4. The respondents have contended that the selection was made on the basis of merit-cum-preference exercised by the candidates. In the case of Inspector (Central Excise), the marks secured by first selected candidate in unreserved category was 514 and the last candidate was 408. The writ petitioner cannot ask for appointment to the post of Inspector (Central Excise), as he had secured only 407 marks. The cut-off mark for Inspector (Examiner), Inspector (Income Tax), Inspector (Central Excise) and Inspector (Preventive Officer) were 509, 478, 408 and 435 respectively. There is no policy to modify the cut-off marks for any post even if the candidate did not join. 5. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. 6. There is no dispute to the fact that the writ petitioner had secured only 407 marks in the selection made by Staff Selection SUMIT GULATI 2015.09.09 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.3703 of 2015 -3- Commission and that cut-off mark for the post of Inspector (Examiner), Inspector (Income Tax), Inspector (Central Excise) and Inspector (Preventive Officer) were 509, 478, 408 and 435 respectively. Under such circumstances, there is no basis for the writ petitioner to stake a claim to the post of Inspector (Central Excise) as the cut-off mark therefor was fixed at 408. 7. The Staff Selection Commission receives the particulars regarding number of vacancies for selection and prepares list of candidates selected on the basis of merit. The writ petitioner was accommodated as Inspector (Posts) on the basis of the marks he had secured. As there is no Rule to accommodate the selected candidates appointed in other Departments based on merit-cum-preference in case of non-joining of a candidate for certain reasons, the writ petitioner cannot seek a prayer to accommodate him in Central Excise Department as an Inspector against the vacancy that would have arisen on account of non-joining of some candidates selected by the Staff Selection Commission and recommended for their appointment. 8. In our considered view, learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim of the writ petitioner. We do not find any merit in the writ petition. Therefore, it stands dismissed. (M. JEYAPAUL) JUDGE September 1, 2015 (DARSHAN SINGH) Gulati JUDGE SUMIT GULATI 2015.09.09 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document "