Anil Singal v. Commissioner of Police

1. Five original applications numbered as 80212013, 91712013' 106212013, 106612013 and 116012013 have been disposed of by a comlnon judgment and order dated october 10, 2oI[3] which has been impugned in the three captioned writ petitions'

2. Learned counsel are in agreement that the applicants in the five original applications were candidates in the unreserved open category seeking appointment to the post of SI Executive (Male)' The grievance of the applicants was to an eligibility cut off prescribed being 25 marks at the interview for unreserved candidates and 20 marks for candidates in the reserved category. The effect was that those who obtained less marks at the interview vis-dr-vis the cut off eligibility marks were not ernpanelled for being appointed as SI Executive (Male) or Female'

3. The petitioners before us are: (i) a female candidate who is the writ petitioner of w.P.(c) No.814712013, (ii) a departmental male candidate who is the writ petitioner of w.P.(c) No.8163120t[3] and (iii) a male candidate in the unreserved category competing by way of open selection who is the writ pctitioner of W.P.(C) No.S16912013'

4. 'fhe grievance of the first two writ petitioners is that only male candidates competing in the open recruitment category were the applicants before the liibunal and thus the decision taken by the Tribunal that the ssc could not have prescribed minimum eligibility marks at the I W.P.(C) No.8 147120 I 3 & corur'matters Page[2] of 4 !i "-{ interview has to be applied only to the male open recruitment category and not io others. The other contention, based on facts, is that not a single female candidate has lost out on the merit position on account of applying the criteria of the minimum cut off marks to be obtained at the interview. Perlaining to W.P.(C) No.8 1 6312013 conceming departmental male candidates it is urged that only one candidate Sh'Arun Kumar who had obtained 16 marks at the interview would be the one who is affected and this would fitean that of the 34 empanelled candidates' the list would be affected only qua the last empanelled candidate and no more and thus the entire list could not be treated by the respondents to be quashed'

5. Sinceonlymalecandidatescompetingintheopenunreserved category were the applicants before the Tribunal, learned counsel for the caveator states that his clients have no concern with, w'P'(c) No.8 14712013 and W'P'(C) No'81 6312013 '

6. Learned counsel for the official respondents would urge that notwithstanding that male unreserved category candidates competing in the open category were the applicants before the Tribunal, the reasoning of the Tribunal would have to be applied to all categories of recruitment'

7. Now, it is settled law that unless a wrong impacts a right' the rights which have accrued cannot be undone. Thus, if the criteria applied has not adversely impacted the select panel in the SI Executive (Female) category, we see no reason why the list of empanelled candidates in the female category should be scrapped by the respondents on the reasoning of the Tribunal'

8. Thus,w.P.(C)No.8I4Tl20I3standsdisposedofdeclaringthatif the decision of the Tribunal has no impact on the select panel drawn up for SI Executive (Females), the select list notified on March 01' 2013 for thelevelvacanciesofSlExecutive(Females)begiveneffectto. a W.P.(C) No.8 1471201 3 & conn'matters Page 3 of[4] '.l g. w.P.(c) No.8 16312013 stands disposed of declaring that the select list dated March 01, 2013 for sI Executive Depaftmental (Male) Candidates be given effcct to save and except for the candidate at serial No.34 for only he would lose out when the candidate Arun Kumar enters the select list for the reason we find that the view taken by the Tribunal impacts onlY one candidate'

10. w.P.(C) No.8 169120:3 stands disposed of directing ssc to, within 30 days from today, re-work the list of sI Executive (Males) in the open category with reference to the decision taken by the Tribunal for the reason we find that not many empanelled candidates as per select list notified on March 01, z0r[3] would be adversely affected and it is desirable that appointments ale made to the post of SI Executive (Males) as early as possible. We note that the grievance of Arun Kumar is that his merit position would make him eligible for appointment as SI Executive (Male) in the open category iffespective of whether the select list is as per the criteria of cut off marks adopted by SSC or de-hors the said criteria' I 1. All writ pctitions stand disposed of without there being any orders as to costs. CM No. 17200/2013 in W'P'(C) No'8147/2013 Ctrrt No.tnZglZOt: in W.p.(Cl No'At0:lZOt: CM No.1723812013 in W'P'(C) No'8169/2013 Dismissed as infi'uctuous. l- -'---f\*? PRADEEP NANHdAIOC, I. v.KAM"rWkb,r. DECEMBER 2o,2ol[3] nrurntu r'\ W.P.(C) No.8 i471201 3 & conn'matters Page 4 of[4]