MAHENDRA KUMAR RAJORIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working in the post of Telecom Technical Assistant and appeared for the examination of Junior Telecom Officer Competitive Examination held for the year 1992 on 13/14 -3 -1993. The vacancies have been enumerated in paragraph 5.1 of the petition showing that there were forty vacancies for other class, 8 vacancies for scheduled caste and four vacancies for scheduled tribe. Thus, in to there were 52 vacancies. The petitioner secured 42% marks as evincible from Annexure -P -2. It is contended in the petition that qualifying marks for Junior Telecom Officer Competitive Examination was relaxed by the Office Memorandum No. 12 -20/94 -DE (PF -1) dated 5 -6 -1997. Heavy reliance has been placed on the said relaxation to pyramid the contention that the petitioner was entitled to the relief in question. It is pertinent to state here that some other candidates approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 402/2000 and the Tribunal has quashed the selection. The said order of quashment of the Tribunal was the subject -matter of attack in W. P. No. 4092/2002 wherein the Division Bench by order dated 28 -4 -2003 quashed the order of the Tribunal and direct the benefit to be extended to the respondent No. 2 therein. Pursuant to the order of this Court the respondents published the result of the Departmental Competitive Examination. It is urged that the petitioner as submitted a representation on 16 -3 -2003 but till the date of filing of the writ petition no action has been taken. It is contended that though he has successfully passed the examination meant for J.T.O. and obtained 42 aggregate marks in percentage, he has not secured 40% in every paper, he was not promoted and not sent for training. Under these circumstances the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court seeking direction to the respondents to send him for training.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents contending, inter alia, that the petitioner appeared in the examination on 25 -9 -1994 but not on the date mentioned in petition and the results were declared on 30 -12 -1995. It is further putforth that the petitioner is not covered by the memorandum of relaxation as the same has to be strictly construed. It is setforth that the conception of relaxation was not to be made applicable for the examination for the post of 1992 which was conducted in the year 1994. It is also asserted that as per old rules a candidate is required to secure 42% of marks in aggregate and 40% in each paper and as the petitioner had not secured the same he was not selected and, therefore, the question of sending him for training does not arise.

(3.) IT is contended by Mr. Rohit Arya and Mr. S. P. Singh that if the relaxation would be applicable the petitioner would be treated to be successful and be sent for training. However, it is relevant to state at this juncture that in paragraph 4 of the said circular it has been held as under : - 4. The relaxation will be applicable sincerely and exclusively in respect of the examination held on 10th and 11th February, 1996 and shall not be precedent for any future examination.