Raj Kumar vs CENSUS on 9 November 2026

O R D E R

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

The applicant has filed this OA praying for direction to revert Respondent No.4, who belongs to UR category to the post of Compiler/Sr. Compiler since he occupied the reserved category post of Statistical Investigator Gr. II, Level-6 in Pay Matrix of Rs. 35,400-1,12,400/-, for the ends of justice and, in turn, to consider his promotion to the said post of Statistical Investigator Gr. II, Level-6 in Pay Matrix of Rs. 35,400-1,12,400/, against reserved vacancy of SC category, to which he belongs, as per Clause 14 of the Notification No. 01/2021 [A/2]. According to the applicant/Ld. Counsel for the applicant, 33 SC vacancies in the grade of Statistical Investigator Gr. II, Level-6 in Pay Matrix of Rs. 35,400-1,12,400/, [SI, Gr.II] were sought to be filled up through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination [LDCE] vide Notification No. 01/2021. The applicant appeared and did well in the said examination. His grading in the APAR for previous five years were ‘very good’ to the best of his knowledge whereas respondents appointed only 24 SC candidates and 9 UR RAVI KUMAR

candidates. He sought details of marks and, the basis on which final select list was prepared excluding him from the panel under RTI Act, 2005 but the CPIO intimated him that he has no information. Further, he sought information regarding quailing marks of UR, SC and ST candidates in the LDCE under RTI Act, 2005 but the same was denied by invoking Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. No mention was made in the Notification No. 01/2021 about the cut off marks/minimum marks required for the candidates for selection and the respondents No.3 deviated the guidelines issued by the DOP&T relating to fixing relaxed standard of qualifying marks for SC candidates. Hence, it is submitted by Ld Counsel for the applicant that it is a fit case were judicial interference in granting the relief sought by the applicant is warranted.

2. The case of the respondents in the counter is that none of the stand taken by the applicant has any basis or substance for granting him the relief and, thus, the OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed in limine and the stand taken by the respondents have been reiterated/enforced by Ld. Counsel RAVI KUMAR

for the respondents in course of hearing to the extent that in terms of the RRs, 2013, the promotional avenues for the Compiler/Sr. Complier to the post of Statistical Investigator Gr. II, Level-6 in Pay Matrix of Rs. 35,400-1,12,400/-, were very limited. However, to mitigate the hardship due to stagnation in promotion of Compiler/Sr. Compiler, new RRs were brought in field vide notification dated 01.10.2019 providing therein that the post of SI, Gr.II shall have to be filled up 840 posts through Direct Recruitment [SC 126 and ST 63]; 180 posts by promotion [SC 26 and ST 14]; and, 180 posts [SC 27 and ST 14] through LDCE with the rider that the posts which cannot be filled up by promotion can also be filled up through LDCE. Out of the vacancies in the SI, Gr.II, 138 posts were already filled up by SC 31 and ST 22. In terms of RRs, 2019, 180 posts were kept to be filled up through LDCE. 42 posts meant to be filled up under promotion quota for the year 2020 and 2021 were lying vacant due to want of eligible candidates. Thus, these 42 vacancies in terms of RRs were added to the existing 180 vacancies meant to be filled up through LDCE. RAVI KUMAR

Hence, according to Respondents altogether 222 posts were to be filled up through LDCE. In terms of the Govt. Notification, 15%, 7.5% and 4% of the posts are reserved for SC, ST and PwD candidates respectively. The vacancies were sought to be filled up through LDCE by the office of the Registrar General of India, New Delhi through Staff Selection Commission [SSC] for promotion to the post of Statistical Investigator Gr. II, Level-6 in Pay Matrix of Rs. 35,400-1,12,400/- vide Notification No. 01/2021. Admittedly, no cut off marks or any relaxed standard for SC/ST candidates were prescribed in the said Notification. The applicant applied and appeared at the selection. The examination was held on 13.08.2022. A list was published containing 222 names in the order of merit. Result of one person was withheld due to non-availability of vigilance clearance. But, as per the MoU, final result was not declared till finalization of the case pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court titled Jarnail Singh and Ors. Vs Lachhmi Narayan Gupta in Civil (Appeal) No. 629/2022 arising out of SLP (C) No. 30621/2011. Therefore, a letter dated 22.09.2022 was sent to DoP&T seeking RAVI KUMAR

permission to declare the final result. The DoP&T vide OM dated 22.09.2022 intimated that the Registrar General of India shall take further action as per the instruction issued on reservation vide OM dated 12.04.2022 with reference to the procedure to be followed prior to effecting reservations in the matter of promotion as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court dated 28.01.2022 in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra). Hence, keeping in mind the OM of the DoP&T and the observation at Para 47 of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra), the result was published, in which the name of the applicant did not find place.

3. According to the respondents, after declaration of the result, there are/were 360 employees in SI, Gr. II in the Office of the RGI, out of which, there were SC-55 and ST-32 as against the requirement of SC-54 and ST-27 in terms of the reservation roster. Accordingly, it is stated that there was no deviation in the reservation roster or preparation of the panel by the SSC in order of merit. The respondents have also produced an affidavit RAVI KUMAR

giving the marks secured by the last SC, ST and UR candidates vis a vis the applicant.

4. We have considered the submissions of the parties and gone through the pleadings of the applicant in the OA and rejoinder, and, counter and reply to rejoinder filed by the respondents so also the documents placed in support thereof. From the affidavit furnished by the respondents, it is seen that 75 marks were secured by the last SC, ST and UR candidates whereas the applicant had secured 70 marks. During the pendency of the OA of the recommendation of the DPC, the applicant was also promoted to the post of SI, Gr.II vide order dated 22.12.2025. In the pleadings so also in course of hearing, emphasis was made on non-supply of the information under RTI Act but this Bench has no competency to deal on the said submission because if the applicant was not given any information, which he had sought under the RTI Act, he should have fought his grievance before appropriate forum and certainly, this Bench is not empowered to deal with the said grievance of the applicant. We find that the LDCE was conducted RAVI KUMAR

by the SSC, it is not the case of the applicant that there was any malpractice or mala fide/bias in the matter of selection conducted by the SSC. The applicant did not also contest the total marks secured by him which was less than the marks obtained by the last selected candidates of SC/ST/UR. The applicant’s stand is that no cut off mark or relaxed standard was notified in the Notification for the SC/ST candidates but despite no mention, he did not challenge the Notification at the earliest, instead, he appeared at the examination pursuant to the Notification and after becoming unsuccessful in securing his position in the merit list veer round challenging his non-selection showing laxity in the Notification, which is impermissible in law. The applicant also did not produce any contrary material to establish that there was inadequate representation in SI, Gr.II against what has been stated by the respondents as discussed above. In the circumstances stated above, we see no ground much less any justifiable ground to interdict/intervene judicial review in the process of selection conducted by the SSC and appointment made on merit after such selection. RAVI KUMAR

5. Resultantly, this OA lacks any merit and is, therefore, dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending MA, if any, stands disposed of.

(Pramod Kumar Das)

(Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.)

Member (Judl.)

RK/PS

RAVI KUMAR