O R D E R

Delivered By:- Hon’ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)

By means of the instant original application filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicant has prayed for quashing the order dated 23.01.2018 passed by respondent no. 3 rejecting his claim holding him not selected against the post of Stenographer Grade „D‟ Prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents to declare the applicant successful on the basis of his merit position against default state option as has been done in the cases of 95 +17 candidates on the basis of the relaxed standard and to recommend his candidature to the user department for appointment against the post of Stenographer Grade „D‟ in default state option.

2. The facts of the case of the applicant, in brief, are that Pursuant to the advertisement published in the Employment New 16-22 July 2011 by the Staff Selection Commission for recruitment of Stenographers Grade „C‟ and Grade „D‟, the applicant, who belongs to OBC category and having requisite qualification, applied against the notified vacancies. The applicant appeared on the written examination as well as in skill test held on 16.10.2011 and 18.01.2012 respectively. It is stated by the applicant that the test was conducted in two phases consisting written examination and skill test. The written examination was qualifying examination and the merit of the candidates was to be assessed on the basis of marks obtained in the skill test. The initial condition for unreserved category candidates to allow in skill test was 7% mistake and for reserved category candidates 10% mistake. Subsequently, number of vacancies remained vacant inspite of candidates already recommended on the basis of 7% and 10% mistake hence the said criteria was relaxed for remaining vacancies and for unreserved category it was made 15% and 20% for reserved category and notification was issued by the Commission on 31.03.2012 providing the relaxed criteria and number of vacancies. Subsequently, a final select list of candidates recommended for appointment was published in which the name of the applicant did not find place.

3. Thereafter, the applicant obtained the details of additional list published on the basis of relaxed criteria alongwith the marks obtained by the candidates, mistakes committed and their category. In this list, the name of the applicant was placed at Sl. No. 11603 bearing Roll No. 3003006725 showing the marks obtained by him 64.25 and mistakes committed was 11.72%. The applicant was in OBC category and in the last column, he was shown as not qualified. But, in the said list, at Sl. No. 11608, one Shri Pradeep Kumar bearing Roll No. 3003006752 has scored 61.75 marks and committed 18.15% mistakes was also shown as not qualified. Similarly, another candidate at Sl. No. 937 Deepmala Saini bearing Roll No. 2002500254 has scored 58.25 marks and committed 12.88% mistakes was also shown as not qualified. In the same manner, one Shri Ashish Prajapati placed at Sl. No. 11676 bearing Roll No. 3003007242 has scored 63.25 and committed 10.30% mistakes was shown as not qualified. Another candidates Shri Chandra Bhan Sl. No. 7387 bearing Roll No. 2404500245 has scored 63.75 marks and committed 18.73 mistakes was also shown as not qualified. It is also stated that all the above candidates were OBC but in the final list, the name of Deepmala Saini, Chandra Bhan, Pradeep Kumar and Ashish Prajapati was placed at Sl. Nos. 58, 482, 578 & 581 and they were recommended for appointment although they had secured lesser marks than the applicant.

4. Aggrieved, the applicant moved an application dated 03.04.2012 before the Regional Director (Respondent no. 3) requesting to declare him successful as candidates securing lesser marks were selected. As no action was taken by the respondents on the application of the applicant, he filed OA No. 1777/2012 which was disposed off vide order dated 27.10.2017 with direction to the respondents to consider the