Back
2019 Supreme(Ker) 880
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. ASHA, J.
Shijith P., S/o. Bharathan P – Appellant
Versus
The Staff Selection Commission, Represented By Regional Director (Karnataka Kerala Region) – Respondent
WP(C).No.18990 of 2017(W)
Decided on : 26-10-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL, SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN
For the Respondent: SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC
IMPORTANT POINTS
The Staff Selection Commission was adopting different yardsticks in different regions/states for the very same selection pursuant to the very same notification, when it should be only in accordance with Rules. It is pertinent to note that the Recruitment Rules were amended as early as in 2013, whereas Ext.P3 notification was issued in the year 2015. The selection commission as well as the appointing authority CISF are equally irresponsible in their indifferent approach in the selection process.
Headnote:
Staff Selection Commission was adopting different yardsticks in different regions/states for the very same selection pursuant to the very same notification, when it should be only in accordance with Rules. It is pertinent to note that the Recruitment Rules were amended as early as in 2013, whereas Ext.P3 notification was issued in the year 2015. The selection commission as well as the appointing authority CISF are equally irresponsible in their indifferent approach in the selection process.
Statement of facts:
The petitioner, who is an Ex-Serviceman is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents to select and appoint him as Sub Inspector of Police in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) despite possession of qualifications as prescribed in the notification.
Finding of the court:
The illegalities in the selection and appointment to disciplined forces like CISF could be unearthed at the instance of the petitioner or otherwise it would have continued as they did even in 2016 selection. There is no answer for the respondents for committing such mistakes in the process of selection. In the circumstances I deem it appropriate to impose cost on respondents 1 and 3. They shall remit a sum of Rs.25,000/-each with the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Result: Writ Petition is disposed of
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner, who is an Ex-Serviceman is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents to select and appoint him as Sub Inspector of Police in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) despite possession of qualifications as prescribed in the notification.
2. Petitioner was discharged from Indian Army on completion of 18 years of service, on 01.06.2012. He is an Ex-Serviceman with an Army Graduation Certificate Ext.P1, issued on 31.05.2012. Pursuant to Ext.P3 notification issued by the Staff Selection Commission on 28.03.2015, petitioner submitted application for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector in CISF which comes under the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). Ext.P3 was a notice for recruitment of Sub Inspectors in Delhi Police and CAPFs and Assistant Sub-Inspector in CISF. The post of Sub Inspector in CAPFs was notified as one classified as Group B non Gazetted, non-ministerial with pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 in Pay Band 2 with grade pay of Rs.4200/-. ASI in CISF was classified as Group C with pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.2800/-. Number of vacancies of SI in CISF reserved for Ex-Servicemen was notified as 54 and of ASIs as 110. It was specified that age relaxation would be available to candidates which included Ex-Serviceman also. Note V of paragraph 4B in Ext.P3 reads as follows:
NOTE V: A matriculate Ex-Serviceman (which term includes an Ex-Serviceman, who has obtained the Indian Army Special Certificate of education or corresponding certificate in the Navy or the Air Force), who has put in not less than 15 years of service as on closing date with Armed Forces of the Union shall be considered eligible for appointment to the posts being advertised through this examination. Thus, those non- graduate ex-servicemen who have not completed 15 years of service as on the last date for receipt of applications as stated in Note-III under para 4(B) are not eligible.
3. As per Note V of paragraph 4B of Ext.P3, petitioner who was having Ext.P1 Army Graduation Certificate was duly qualified for appointment of SI and for all posts notified in Ext.P3 notice. On being successful in both the examinations conducted on 21.06.2015 and 30.08.2015, petitioner received call letter to appear for certificate verification. When he reported for the same he was told that he was not eligible for appointment as SI and that his candidature can be considered only for the post of ASI. With much objection, he appeared for the interview and thereafter he was appointed as ASI in CISF as per Ext.P5 order on 30.08.2016. After undergoing training, he joined as ASI on 09.03.2017. The petitioner points out that during the training period, he came to know that several of the persons who were undergoing training for the post of SIs were having only Army Graduate Certificate. It was pointed out that one Sri.Pankaj Kumar, serial no.2 in Ext.P6 list of Ex-servicemen appointed as SI, was having only the Army Graduate Certificate, as evident from his qualification mentioned therein. The petitioner also pointed out that 17 such candidates have been appointed as SI on the basis of their Army Graduate Certificate in the previous selection conducted pursuant to Ext.P7 notification of 2014. It was stated that M/s.Amit Agrawal and Jagath Raj, who were serial No.2 and 6 in Ext.P8 list therein got appointment as SI though they were also having only Army Graduation Certificates. This Writ Petition is filed in the above background seeking a declaration that petitioner is eligible for appointment as SI as per Ext.P3 notification based on Ext.P1 certificate.
4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the post of SI in CAPF including CISF is a group B post whereas that Delhi Police is a group C post as in the case of ASI in CISF. It is stated that Army Graduation Certificate is not sufficient qualification for the said appointment and that a Degree from a recognised University or equivalent is the requisite qual
