The appointing authority's decision, as per the SOP, is final, and the qualification in the typing test is mandatory for the selection process.

JUDGMENT :

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. These are two petitions by the Union of India (Petitioner No.1) through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence (‘MoD’) and the Director General (‘DG’) of the Armed Forces Medical Store Depot (‘AFMS Depot’), Delhi Cantonment challenging the common order dated 24th September, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’), Principal Bench in TA Nos. 9 and 11 of 2010.

2. While W.P.(C) 1026/ 2011 is directed against the decision of the CAT in TA No.11 of 2010 where, Ms. Sonwati Sharma is the sole Respondent, W.P.(C) 1031 of 2011 is against the decision in TA No.9 of 2010 where Arun Kumar and Sushil Kumar Panchal are Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3. The background facts are that the AFMS Depot is a unit of the Directorate General, Armed Forces Medical Services (‘AFMS’). The DG is the appointing authority of Group ‘C’ posts in terms of part V of Schedule 2B (viii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. It is stated that the DG has delegated the responsibility and powers of making appointments to the DDG (ELS) which had been redesignated as Addl. DG AFMS (E&S).

4. In the year 1998, eight vacancies arose in the post of Store Keeper, out of which, one vacancy each was reserved for members of the Scheduled Caste (‘SC’) and Scheduled Tribe (‘ST’) respectively. Three vacancies were to be filled up from Other Backward Class (‘OBC’) candidates and the General Category (‘GC’) candidates respectively. The vacancies were advertised in the National Daily Newspaper. A Board of Officers (‘BoO’) was constituted to make the selection. The BoO recommended three GC candidates in the following order: Mr. Kamal Singh, Ms. Krishna and Ms. Sonwati Sharma. It recommended three OBC candidates: Mr. Sushil Kumar Panchal, Mr. Vijay Kumar and Mr. Arun Kumar.

5. The appointing authority on perusing the documents was of the view that the three GC candidates had been over-assessed in their performance. He accordingly ordered revaluation of their papers independently by constituting another independent Board. Based on such re-evaluation independently arrived at by two senior officers acting as examiners, only two candidates were selected, one each from OBC (Mr. Vijay Kumar) and GC (Mr. Kamal Singh). As regards the remaining candidates, their marks on re-evaluation were found to be grossly inadequate. By a letter dated 4th January, 1999 the AFMS Depot was asked to initiate fresh action for recruitment for the remaining vacancies of Store Keepers. It was also directed that the candidates recommended by the previous BOO and not found eligible on re-evaluation, could be included in the fresh recruitment process.

6. Aggrieved by the above action while Ms. Sonwati Sharma filed CWP No.4773 of 1999, Mr. Arun Kumar and Mr. Sushil Kumar Panchal filed CWP No.6004 of 1999 in this Court.

7. By an order dated 16th May, 2002 this Court dismissed CWP No.4773 of 1999 holding that there was no infirmity in the procedure adopted by the appointing authority who was not bound by the recommendation of the BOO.

8. Aggrieved by the above judgment, Ms. Sonwati Sharma filed LPA No.7762 of 2002. By a judgment dated 8th January, 2004 a Division Bench of this Court set aside the order dated 16th May, 2002 on the ground that the Single Judge had taken into account the marks scored on the re-evaluation, whereas the stand taken by the Petitioner herein was that Ms. Sonwati Sharma had in fact failed to qualify the test. Accordingly, CWP No.4773 of 1999 was revived and the Single Judge was asked to dispose it of in light of the facts pleaded.

9. In January, 2010 both the revived CWP No.4773 of 1999 and the pending CWP No.6004 of 1999 were transferred to the CAT in New Delhi and renumbered as TA Nos.11 of 2010 and 9 of 2010 respectively.

10. By the impugned common judgment dated 24th September, 2010, the CAT allowed both the TAs, with the directions to the Petitioners to offer the Resp