Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

VIKAS SEHRAWAT v. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION

Central Administrative Tribunal

Apr 13, 2023

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Judgment Summary: OA No. 3232/2018 (Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench)

Factual and Procedural Background

This summary is drawn exclusively from the text of the Tribunal's order dated 13.04.2023 in OA No. 3232/2018.

The applicant, Vikas Sehrawat, a candidate in the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2012 (CGLE‑2012) conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), cleared the written examination and was called for the Data Entry Skill Test (DEST). The SSC issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 27.05.2013 alleging resort to unfair means; the applicant replied to the SCN on 07.06.2013 (reply also referenced on 13.06.2013 in the record). Several other candidates received similar SCNs.

One affected candidate (Sudesh) filed OA No.930/2014 before this Tribunal; the Tribunal allowed relief on 30.07.2014 directing SSC to declare results and allocate services. SSC challenged that order in WP(C) No.9055/2014 (High Court of Delhi), which dismissed the writ petition holding the notices to be vague. SSC then appealed to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No.2836‑2838/2017). The present applicant filed Interlocutory Applications (IAs) Nos.10‑12 on 09.03.2017 for impleadment in that appeal; the Supreme Court allowed those IAs and dismissed the appeal on 19.07.2017. SSC's subsequent review petition was dismissed on 31.10.2017.

After the Supreme Court proceedings, the applicant made a representation to SSC (dated 04.11.2017 / 04.01.2017 is referenced in different parts of the record) seeking appointment to the post of Tax Assistant for which he was eligible. SSC declared results of 286 candidates by notification dated 15.01.2018 and subsequently issued an Office Order dated 30.05.2018 rejecting the applicant's representation on the ground that he had not approached any legal forum prior to 19.07.2017.

The applicant earlier filed OA No.1587/2018 seeking direction to SSC to decide his representation; that OA was disposed of on 23.04.2018 with a direction to decide the representation within two months. After SSC's rejection dated 30.05.2018, the applicant filed the present OA (No. 3232/2018) in August 2018 seeking (a) appointment to the post of Tax Assistant with consequential benefits and (b) other appropriate reliefs.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the applicant, having participated in CGLE‑2012 and having been impleaded/allowed to be a party in the Supreme Court proceedings arising out of Sudesh litigation, is entitled to be treated similarly to other candidates whose withheld results were declared and to be appointed to the post of Tax Assistant.
Whether the Office Order dated 30.05.2018 issued by the SSC (which excluded candidates who had not approached any legal forum prior to 19.07.2017) is legally sustainable, or whether it should be quashed to permit appointment of the applicant.
Whether the plea of limitation (raised by respondents) bars the applicant's claim given the chronology of SCN (27.05.2013), replies, subsequent litigations, and the applicant's earlier approach to the Tribunal (OA No.1587/2018).
Whether the principle that "similarly situated persons should be treated similarly" (Article 14) applies to extend the benefit granted to other candidates to the applicant.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

The applicant cleared CGLE‑2012, was eligible for Tax Assistant, and attended DEST pursuant to a call letter dated 26.10.2012.
The SCN dated 27.05.2013 was responded to by the applicant. Multiple candidates received similar SCNs; the Tribunal in Sudesh (OA No.930/2014) declared SSC's actions untenable and ordered allocation of services.
The applicant successfully sought impleadment in the Supreme Court proceedings (IAs allowed on 19.07.2017) and therefore became a party to the litigation that resulted in the SCNs being found untenable; he argued he is thus similarly situated to other candidates who obtained relief and whose results were later declared.
SSC's invocation of a cut‑off date (19.07.2017) to deny relief is factually incorrect and arbitrary because the applicant had sought impleadment before that date (IAs filed 09.03.2017) and had earlier approached the Tribunal (OA No.1587/2018). The denial amounts to discrimination and violation of Article 14.
The applicant sought a direction for appointment with consequential benefits and contended that technicalities should not defeat his claim when he had actively pursued remedies in courts and tribunals.

Respondents' Arguments

Respondents raised a preliminary objection of limitation: the cause of action arose on 27.05.2013 when the SCN was issued; the present OA filed on 01.08.2018 (or in August 2018) is belated. They relied on S.S. Rathore (AIR 1990 SC 10) for the proposition regarding time limits for approaching courts depending on whether representation/appeal was filed.
Respondents submitted the applicant did not pursue his remedies promptly after replying to the SCN and effectively "slept over" his rights for about 4½ years until the Apex Court judgment in Sudesh (19.07.2017) came to his notice.
Respondents relied on multiple decisions (listed in the record) to support their contention that the OA is highly belated and that the benefit granted in Sudesh should not automatically extend to all candidates who did not pursue claims within the relevant timeframe.
SSC defended its Office Order dated 30.05.2018 which specified categories of candidates whose withheld results would be declared (including those who had filed court cases before 19.07.2017, etc.) and excluded candidates who had not approached any legal forum prior to 19.07.2017.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Sudesh — OA No.930/2014 (Sudesh vs. SSC) and related Supreme Court proceedings (Civil Appeal No.2836‑2838/2017)	The record shows Sudesh: this Tribunal held SSC's actions untenable and directed declaration/allocation of services; the High Court dismissed SSC's writ; the Supreme Court dismissed SSC's appeal on 19.07.2017. The opinion treats Sudesh as the litigation that found the SCNs untenable.	The Court treated the outcome of Sudesh as central: once the applicant was impleaded in the Supreme Court proceedings and the appeals were dismissed, the applicant was deemed similarly situated to other successful candidates and entitled to relief.
S.S. Rathore vs. State of M.P., AIR 1990 SC 10	The opinion records the specific rule cited: an aggrieved person must approach the court within one year if no representation/appeal has been filed and within one and a half year if a representation has been filed.	Respondents relied on this decision to contend the OA was time‑barred. The Tribunal considered the limitation plea based on this authority but examined the factual matrix (including prior applications and representation) and did not accept the respondents' limitation contention as dispositive.
State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747	The opinion cites this case for the principle that similarly situated persons should be treated alike in service jurisprudence.	The Tribunal relied on this authority to reinforce the proposition that when a set of employees/candidates are given relief by the Court, identically situated persons should be treated similarly — supporting the applicant's claim to equal treatment.
State of Uttar Pradesh & others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & others, (2015) 1 SCC 347	The opinion cites this case for the same service jurisprudence principle: persons similarly situated must be treated equally and one person's approach to court should not create an undue advantage against others.	The Tribunal applied the principle from this authority together with State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha to conclude that similarly situated candidates must be extended the same benefit.
State of Haryana & others v. Miss Ajay Walia, JT 1997 (6) 592 (SC)	The opinion lists this case as relied on by respondents. The specific rule/principle cited from this authority is not detailed in the provided opinion text.	The precedent was listed by respondents in support of their position on limitation/late claims; the Tribunal's detailed reasoning does not record reliance on this authority for its conclusion.
State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 1	The opinion lists this case as relied on by respondents. The specific rule/principle cited from this authority is not detailed in the provided opinion text.	Listed by respondents; the Tribunal's order does not indicate it applied this precedent in reaching its decision as recorded in the text.
D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India, SLP (C) No.3709/2011 (SC)	Listed by respondents; the opinion text does not specify the precise principle relied upon from this case.	Included among authorities cited by respondents in support of their contention of delay/limitation; the Tribunal's reasoning as recorded does not attribute reliance upon it for the final order.
Surjit Singh v. Union of India & others, CWP No.18360/2016 (High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)	Listed by respondents; the opinion does not detail the exact rule or principle taken from this case.	Mentioned by respondents; the Tribunal's written analysis as provided does not record specific application of this authority to uphold respondents' stance.
Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, CWP No.16921/2016 (High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)	Listed by respondents; the opinion does not state the specific rule/principle cited from this decision.	Included in respondents' list of authorities; the Tribunal's analysis does not record reliance upon it in the adjudicative reasoning contained in the order.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal's reasoning followed a factual and legal sequence anchored on the applicant's litigation history and established service jurisprudence:

Chronology and prior proceedings: The Tribunal set out the procedural history — issuance of SCN (27.05.2013), the applicant's reply, the Sudesh litigation (OA No.930/2014) and its progression up to the Supreme Court where the applicant's IAs for impleadment were allowed on 19.07.2017 and the appeal dismissed. The Tribunal observed that the SCNs were ultimately found to be untenable.
Applicant's participation in litigation: The Tribunal found that once the applicant's IAs for impleadment in Civil Appeal No.2836‑2838/2017 were allowed, he became a party to the Supreme Court litigation and therefore was similarly situated to other respondents/candidates in those proceedings.
Limitation plea considered but not accepted as dispositive: The respondents pleaded limitation and relied on S.S. Rathore (AIR 1990 SC 10). The Tribunal examined the timeline and the fact that the applicant had earlier approached the Tribunal in OA No.1587/2018 (disposed on 23.04.2018 with a direction to decide his representation) and therefore was not a candidate who had entirely "slept on his rights." The Tribunal rejected the characterization that the applicant had been wholly dormant between the SCN and later proceedings.
Application of equality/similarity principle: Citing State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347, the Tribunal reiterated the settled principle of service jurisprudence: similarly situated persons must be treated alike; when courts grant relief to a set of employees/candidates, identically situated persons should be extended the same benefit; failure to do so would amount to discrimination and violate Article 14.
Assessment of SSC's Office Order: The Tribunal reviewed the Office Order dated 30.05.2018 by which SSC declined to consider the applicant's case on the basis that he had not approached any legal forum prior to 19.07.2017. The Tribunal found the Office Order's categorical exclusionary reasoning to be contrary to the facts and to fall short of expectations from the State as a model employer. The Tribunal noted that respondents had admitted implementing the Supreme Court's judgment and ought to have taken the entire record into account and applied the ratio to the applicant as well.
Disposition: On this basis, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the Office Order dated 30.05.2018 and directed the respondents to issue a letter of appointment to the applicant, subject to his eligibility and suitability as per merit. The Tribunal also specified the nature and timing of consequential benefits and procedural directions for implementation.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The Tribunal allowed the OA and quashed and set aside the SSC's Office Order dated 30.05.2018 insofar as it denied consideration of the applicant's case. The respondents were directed to issue a letter of appointment to the applicant, if he is otherwise found to be eligible and suitable as per merit.

Implications / Direct Consequences:

The applicant is to be issued a letter of appointment if he is otherwise eligible and suitable as per merit.
The applicant shall be entitled to consequential benefits only on a notional basis from the date when his immediate junior had been appointed.
The applicant shall be entitled to actual salary and benefits from the date of his joining.
In the absence of any existing vacancy, the applicant is to be adjusted against any anticipated vacancy.
The exercise directed by the Tribunal is to be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
There shall be no order as to costs.

The opinion does not purport to lay down a new binding precedent beyond applying established service jurisprudence (as cited) and resolving the dispute between the parties on the facts and law before it. The Tribunal's order operates to provide relief to this applicant and to require SSC to implement the Supreme Court decision in its letter and spirit so far as similarly situated candidates (including the applicant) are concerned.

End of summary. This document is a faithful synthesis of the findings, reasoning and directions contained in the Tribunal's order dated 13.04.2023 in OA No. 3232/2018 and includes only information explicitly contained in that opinion.

Show all summary ...

1 OA No. 3232/2018

Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi

OA No. 3232/2018 Order reserved on: 28.02.2023 Order pronounced on: 13.04.2023

Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A) Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

1. Vikas Sehrawat, S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Sehrawat R/o House No.207, Road No.4, Gali No.11, Village & Post Office Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037

Aged about 29 years

(Candidate toward CGLE-2012) ....Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Surendere Singh Hooda with Mr. Aayushman Aeron)

Versus

1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman (Head Quarter) Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110504.

2. Staff Selection Commission (Northern Region) Through its Regional Director,

Block No.12, CGO Complex,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110504.

... Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. Ranjan Tyagi)

2 OA No. 3232/2018

ORDER

By Hon'ble Manish Garg, Member (J)

In the present OA, the applicant is seeking following reliefs:

"a) Issue an order to the Respondents to appoint the Applicant to the post of Tax Assistant along with all the consequential benefits.

b) Any other direction or relief this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the present circumstances and in the interest of justice."

2. Learned counsel for the applicant stated as under:

2.1 The applicant appeared in the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2012 (CGLE-2012) conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). He successfully cleared the written examination and received a call letter dated 26.10.2012 for Data Entry Skill Test (DEST). He was eligible for the post of Tax Assistant as per his preferences.

2.2 He received a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 27.05.2013 from second respondent wherein it was alleged that during the post-examination scrutiny and analysis of the performance of the candidates, he had resorted to unfair means in the examination. He was asked to show cause as to why his candidature should not be cancelled to which he replied on 07.06.2013.

3 OA No. 3232/2018

2.3 Many candidates of CGLE-2012 had received similar SCNs and one such recipient, namely, Sudesh had filed OA No.930/2014 (Sudesh vs. SSC) before this Tribunal, which was allowed by this Tribunal vide Order dated 30.07.2014 directing the SSC to declare the result of the applicant(s) and allocate the service as per eligibility. The said Order of the Tribunal was challenged by the SSC in WP(C) No.9055/2014 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dismiss the said Writ Petition holding that all the notices issued were vague and devoid of any relevant particulars.

2.4 Aggrieved by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, SSC preferred Civil Appeal No.2836-2838/2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicant before us had filed Interlocutory Applications (IAs) No.10-12 on 09.03.2017 in said Civil Appeal No.2836-2838/2017 seeking impleadment as party in the said Appeals.

2.5 Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its final order dated 19.07.2017, allowed the said I.As. for impleadment and also by way of same order dismissed the Appeal being devoid of merit.

2.6 Once the IAs of the applicant herein seeking impleadment as respondent were allowed, he was a party to

4 OA No. 3232/2018 the litigation in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus he is similarly situated as all the respondents in Civil Appeal No.2836-2838/2017.

2.7 Further, aggrieved by the order in Civil Appeals, the SSC preferred a Review Petition (Civil) No.2417-2019/2017 which too was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 31.10.2017. It is further submitted that the end result of this litigation was that the SCNs issued by the SSC with regard to use of unfair means in CGLE-2012 were found to be untenable and hence were overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

2.8 Thereafter, applicant made a representation on 04.01.2017 to the SSC stating that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had allowed his prayer for impleadment in Civil Appeal No.2836-2838/2017, thus he was a party to the litigation and was entitled for appointment to the post he had qualified for.

2.9 SSC by way of notification dated 15.01.2018 declared the result of 286 candidates of CGLE-2012, who had got relief from the court of law.

2.10 When the respondents did not decide the representation of the applicant dated 04.11.2017, he approached this Tribunal in OA No.1587/2018 titled Vikas Sehrawat vs. SSC, which was disposed of vide order dated

5 OA No. 3232/2018 23.04.2018 with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant dated 04.11.2017. However, vide Order dated 30.05.2018 respondent no.2 rejected the representation of the applicant dated 04.11.2017 on the ground that he had not approached any legal forum prior to 19.07.2017 which is factually incorrect as the applicant had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of IAs on 09.03.2017 which was much before the cut of date, i.e., 19.07.2017.

2.11 Moreover, the judgment passed by the Tribunal in

Sudesh (supra) has already been upheld to the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court and is a judgment in rem and not in personam. Hence, the cut off date invoked by the respondents to deny declaration of the result of the applicant and his subsequent appointment is illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and against the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The applicant is similarly situated with all other candidates who had approached the court of law for relief and got their result declared, hence, applicant also deserves to be treated equally. Hence the OA.

3. Per contra, respondents have filed their counter reply vehemently opposing the contentions raised by the applicant in the OA. At the outset, respondents have raised a preliminary objection of limitation as the applicant filed the

6 OA No. 3232/2018 OA on 01.08.2018 whereas the cause of action for him arose on 27.05.2013. In support of their contention, the respondents have relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Rathore vs. State of MP, AIR 1990 SC 10, wherein, the Hon'ble Court has held that an aggrieved person must approach the court for relief within one year, if no representation/appeal has been filed and within one and a half year, if a representation has been filed. It is further submitted that after giving his reply dated 07.06.2013 to the SCN dated 27.05.2013, the applicant kept on sleeping for almost 4 ½ years until the judgment dated 19.07.2017 of the Apex Court in Sudesh (supra) came to his notice. He has neither approached the SSC after submission of the reply to SCN nor ever presented his case before the Hon'ble Court during the entire period from 27.05.2013 to 13.04.2018 - the date of filing of the OA No.1587/2018 wherein the respondents were directed to decide his representation dated 04.11.2017. In compliance thereof, the respondents, after due consideration of applicant's representation dated 04.11.2017, had given a reply to him on 30.05.2018 which has been challenged by the applicant in the instant OA in August 2018.

7 OA No. 3232/2018

3.1 To further buttress their claim, the respondents have relied on the following decisions of various Courts including Hon'ble Supreme Court:

(1) State of Haryana and others vs. Miss Ajay Walia,

JT 1997 (6) 592 (SC)

(2) State of Punjab vs. Gurdev Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 1

(3) D.C.S.Negi vs. UOI, SLP (C) No.3709/2011 (SC)

(4) Surjit Singh vs. UOI and others, CWP No.18360/2016 of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

(5) Narendra Kumar vs. UOI, CWP No.16921/2016 of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

3.2 Accordingly, the OA is highly belated at this stage and applicant is not eligible for any remedy from this Tribunal. The judgment of Sudesh (supra) is restricted to the petitioners therein and admittedly the present applicant did not take any step to revive his claims at the correct time.

4. Heard Mr. Surender Singh Hooda with Mr. Aayushman Aeron, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Ranjan Tyagi, learned counsel for respondents and perused the pleadings on record.

8 OA No. 3232/2018

5. Analysis:

5.1 It is not the case of the applicant that he has been agitating his grievances for the first time or at belated stage.

5.2 As per well settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha,

(2006) 2 SCC 747 and State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others, (2015) 1 SCC 347, service jurisprudence evolved by the Hon'ble Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly; only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently; justice demands that a person should not be allowed to derive any undue advantage over other employees; the normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit; not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; this principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated equally.

9 OA No. 3232/2018

5.3 The records will reveal that earlier also, the applicant had knocked the door of this Tribunal in OA No.1587/2018, wherein the said OA was disposed of vide Order dated 23.4.2018, which is reproduced herein below :-

"Learned counsel for the applicant states that in the matter of Staff Selection Commission thr. Its Chairman & Anr. Vs. Sudesh, the applicant was also a party before the Hon'ble Apex Court in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has given a decision in favour of the applicant herein. Learned counsel for the applicant states that in pursuance of the order in favour of the applicant, he has given a representation dated 04.11.2017 to the respondents stating all the facts but till date no decision has been taken by the respondents on the same. He further submits that the applicant will be happy and satisfied if a direction is given to the respondents to decide the representation within a time bound manner.

2. Accordingly taking into consideration the statement made by the applicant's counsel, we do not find it necessary to keep the OA pending. The respondents are directed to decide the representation dated 04.11.2017 of the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is also made clear that nothing has been commented on the merits of the case."

5.4 To put facts straight, SSC advertised Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2012 on 24.03.2012. Tier-I of the exam were held between 01.07.2012 and 08.07.2012 and Tier-II were held between 15.09.2012 and 16.09.2012. Thereafter, interviews were conducted for the said exam on 27.12.2012. On 27.05.2013, applicant received SCN that he has resorted to unfair methods and cheating in the examination. He sent his reply to the SCN on 13.06.2013. It is submitted that similar SCNs had been issued to various other candidates and some of them had approached this Tribunal against the aforesaid SCNs, one of which was OA

10 OA No. 3232/2018 No.930/2014 titled Sudesh (supra), which was disposed of on 30.07.2014 holding the actions of the SSC untenable and directed the SSC to allocate the services to the candidates for which they were eligible. The Order dated 30.07.2014 was challenged by the respondents before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.9055/2014, which was dismissed and held that all the notices issued were vague and devoid of any relevant particulars. Aggrieved by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the SSC preferred Civil Appeal No.2836- 2838/2017 before Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicant herein had also filed Interlocutory Applications (IAs) No.10-12 on 09.03.2017 in Civil Appeal No.2836-2838/2017, seeking impleadment as respondents in the said Appeals, which has been allowed on 19.07.2017 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the Civil Appeal.

5.5 Once the IAs of the applicant herein seeking impleadment as respondent were allowed, he was a party to the litigation in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus he is similarly situated as all the respondents in Civil Appeal No.2836-2838/2017.

5.6 Aggrieved by the order in Civil Appeals, the SSC preferred a Review Petition (Civil) No.2417-2019/2017, which too was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 31.10.2017. The end result of this litigation was that

11 OA No. 3232/2018 the SCN issued by the SSC with regard to use of unfair means in CGLE-2012 were found to be untenable and hence, were overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5.7 The SSC announced result of 286 candidates whose candidature had been cancelled on similar grounds as they had approached the Courts of law.

6. We may highlight the Office Order dated 30.05.2018, rejecting the representation of the applicant dated 04.11.2017, which reads as under :-

"Sub: Representation dated 04.11.2017 - OA No.1587/2018 filed by Shri Vikas Sehrawat V/s Staff Selection Commission & Another in Hon'ble CAT, New Delhi, CGLE 2012-reg. Sir,

I am directed to refer to your representation dated 04.11.2017 received through Shri (Dr.) Surender Singh Hooda, Advocate regarding considering your name in the result declared by the Commission on 15.01.2018 and to say that subsequent to Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment dated 19.07.2017 in SLP (C) No.9019-21/2015 in the matter of Ms. Sudesh, a candidate of CGLE 2012, the Commission has decided to consider the declaration of withheld result of CGLE 2012 of those such candidates only:

a) Who have filed Court cases before the date of dismissal of SLP in Apex Court in the matter of Ms. Sudesh Kumar i.e. 19.07.2017 and the same was disposed of in their favour either before 19.07.2017 or after 19.07.2017;

b) Who had filed Court cases & had judgments in their favour before 19.07.2017 (which was not implemented by the Commission at that time) and are filing fresh OAs/MA after 19.07.2017 for revival of their cases;

c) Whose Cases had been adjourned by Courts in view of pendency of SLP in Apex court; and

d) Whose Cases where Commission has given statement in the Courter Affidavit that action will be taken as per verdict in Ms. Sudesh Kumari case.

(2) It was also decided by the Commission that the candidates who did not approach any legal forum for such a

12 OA No. 3232/2018 relief prior to 19.07.2017 their cases will not be considered for declaration of their withheld result at this later stage. Accordingly, your case is not found fit to be considered in view of the above mentioned guidelines issued by the Commission."

7. The respondents have passed the Office Order dated 30.05.2018 stating that:-

"b) Who had filed Court cases & had judgments in their favour before 19.07.2017 (which was not implemented by the Commission at that time) and are filing fresh OAs/MA after 19.07.2017 for revival of their cases;"

The said reasoning not only falls short of expectation from the State being a model employer but is also contrary to the facts and records of the instant case, as highlighted above. The case of the applicant cannot be denied or defeated by mere technicalities. We have nothing more to add except the fact that respondents have themselves admitted to the implementation of the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in its letter and spirit. They ought to have taken a complete picture into account and also applied the ratio to the applicant as well, since, he had also preferred OA No.1587/2018.

8. Conclusion:

8.1 We, therefore, quash and set aside the Office Order dated 30.05.2018 passed by the respondents and direct the respondents to issue letter of appointment to the applicant, if he is otherwise found to be eligible and suitable as per his

13 OA No. 3232/2018 merit. It is further made clear that the applicant shall be entitled to consequential benefits only on a notional basis from the date when his immediate junior had been appointed. The applicant shall be entitled to actual salary and benefits from date of his joining. It is also made clear that in absence of any existing vacancy, the applicant shall be adjusted against any anticipated vacancy.

8.2 The exercise, as ordained above, shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

8.3 The OA is allowed in aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Manish Garg) (Anand Mathur) Member (J) Member (A)

/sd/