Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.
Amresh Shukla - Appellant
Versus
Directorate General, C.I.S.F. & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 979 of 2012
Decided On : 28-09-2022
Tie Breaker Principle - Recruitment Dispute - MHA Notification 16.04.2011 - OM 21.08.2000, SOP 17.08.2005, Relegation Policy 09.07.2012, Recommendation Details and Cut-off Marks for CISF LDCE-2021 - The court held that in the absence of a 'tie breaker principle' in the MHA Notification 16.04.2011, the determining factor for seniority should be 'age'/date of birth and not 'marks'. The court emphasized that the CISF should have followed its usual practice under similar circumstances and that the 'tie breaker principle' should be based on 'age'/date of birth when not mentioned in the advertisement for LDCE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Commandant (EXE) in CISF through LDCE-2010-2011. Despite securing the same marks as the last candidate in the list of successful candidates for the year 2010, the petitioner was not selected due to the absence of a 'tie breaker principle' in the MHA Notification 16.04.2011.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the CISF's adoption of the 'tie breaker principle' based on 'marks' rather than 'age'/date of birth was improper and contrary to the usual practice. It held that the determining factor for seniority should be 'age'/date of birth when the 'tie breaker principle' is missing.
Issues: The issues revolved around the selection criteria for the post of Assistant Commandant (EXE) in CISF and the application of the 'tie breaker principle' in the absence of specific rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that in the absence of a 'tie breaker principle' in the MHA Notification 16.04.2011, the determining factor for seniority should be 'age'/date of birth and not 'marks'. It emphasized that the CISF should have followed its usual practice under similar circumstances and that the 'tie breaker principle' should be based on 'age'/date of birth when not mentioned in the advertisement for LDCE.
Final Decision: The court directed the CISF to declare the petitioner as finally selected for the post of Assistant Commandant (EXE) through LDCE-2010-2011 and to offer him an appointment within four weeks. The appointment was not to have a retrospective effect and would not affect the continuing service of other candidates.
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Banerjee, J. - The petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Commandant1 (EXE) in the Central Industrial Security Force2 Limited Departmental Competitive Examination3 -2010 and 2011 under 'General' category for the 1 hereinafter referred to as 'AC' 2 hereinafter referred to as 'CISF' 3 hereinafter referred to as 'LDCE' year 2010 pursuant to applications invited for the recruitment for the years 2010 and 2011 vide Ministry of Home Affairs4 Notification on 16.04.2011.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that though his name appeared in the list of successful candidates for the year 2010 in order of merit published by the Union Public Service Commission5 and also in the list of recruitment to the post of AC(EXE) through LDCE 2010-2011 issued by the Director General6, CISF, both dated 21.11.2011, but unfortunately, based on revised scrutiny and certification by DG, CISF, the UPSC recast the said list of candidates in order of merit in supersession of the said list of 21.11.2011. The same resulted in deletion of the name of petitioner from the recasted list of successful candidates for the year 2010. Subsequently, the DG, CISF adopted and affirmed the recast list and published it on 10.02.2012.
3. The petitioner attributes the above to discrepancies and apprehends that the officials of CISF and UPSC are responsible for this. The petitioner is aggrieved, firstly as the maximum age limit for the said post of AC(EXE) in the CISF as per the Notification dated 16.04.2011 was 35 years and he would be barred by age if not selected and thus be disqualified after 2010 and secondly as the last candidate in the list of successful candidates for the year 2010 and the petitioner both secured same marks, i.e., there was a tie break inter-se them, but as there was no 'tie breaker principle' in the Notification dated 16.04.2011, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the list of candidates. As per petitioner, his name was not reckoned by CISF as the CISF wrongly followed the then prevalent principle of UPSC whereby UPSC reckoned 'marks' in the written paper rather than 'age'/date of birth 4 hereinafter referred as 'MHA' 5 hereinafter referred to as 'UPSC' 6 hereinafter referred to as 'DG' as the basis for selection of a candidate to the post of AC(EXE) in the case of a tie-break. The petitioner submits this was contrary to the usual practice of selecting a candidate on the basis of 'age'/date of birth. To be noted that amongst the various grounds taken by petitioner, learned counsel has restricted the arguments only qua the second grievance enumerated hereinbefore. The same are being dealt in the foregoing paragraphs below.
4. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the following reliefs:
'a) To issue a writ of Certiorari for quashing the FAX/E-MAIL Message No. E-32015(4)1/AC-LDCE-2010-2011/PERS.I/509 dated 10.02.2012 issued by Director General, CISF;
b) Issue a writ of Certiorari for quashing the list of finally qualified candidate for the post of CISF, Asst. Commandant LDCE-2010-2011 as published by respondent no. 2 though press note dated 31.01.2012;
c) issue writ of mandamus or such other appropriate directions & orders to the Respondent no. 2 to Respondent no. 1, thereby directing the Respondent no. 1 to restore/revive and adopt the list of successful candidates for recruitment to the post of Asst. Commandant (exe) through ace, Idce-2010-2011 published vide Fax/ E-mail message No. e-32015(4)1/ac-ldce-2010-2011/pers.i/1967 dated 21.11.2011;
d) issue writ of mandamus or such other appropriate directions & orders to the Respondent no. 1 to restore/revive and adopt the list of successful candidates published vide press note dated 21.11.2011
e) to issue writ of mandamus or such other appropriate directions & orders to the Respondent no. 1, thereby directing the respondent no. 1 to declare Petitioner as finally being selected for the recruitment to the recruitment to the post of Asst. Commandant (EXE) through AC(LD
In the absence of a specific 'tie breaker principle', the determining factor for seniority should be 'age'/date of birth and not 'marks'. The court emphasized the importance of following usual practi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the relevance of Gazette Notifications and their impact on determining seniority, considering past practice and the impact of delays in revising se....
The seniority of candidates appointed from the Reserve List does not rank senior to the candidates initially recommended/appointed in terms of the first recommendation of the UPSC, as they possess hi....
Eligibility for promotion under conflicting recruitment rules must prioritize service years and proper seniority lists as determined by precedent.
The appointment date and seniority of a candidate should be based on their exam rank, and failure to communicate potential loss of seniority can be held against the authorities.
Seniority in service is a statutory right determined by established merit lists, with waiting list candidates lacking rights to precedence over those appointed from the main list.
Seniority must be reckoned from the date of substantive appointment, as an employee cannot claim seniority for any period prior to their actual entry into the service or their induction into the cadr....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
