IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA NO. 3292/2012 IN THE MATTER OF: P.K.

Dabas & Ors. Vs. UOI & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS ...APPLICANTS

REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS. Most Respectfully Showeth: Parawise Reply:Para 1: That the contents of para 1 of the reply are false, frivolous, concocted and hence denied. The

respondents have not passed the order after following due procedure.

Para 2 & 3:

Need no rejoinder.

Para 4.1: Need no rejoinder.

Para 4.2: The contents of para 4.2 of the reply are false and baseless hence denied. It has been wrongly stated by the respondents that they have allocated zones by following due procedure. In fact, preference given by the applicants was ignored by violating DOP&T

instructions as mentioned in the OA.

Para 4.3: The contents of para 4.3 of the reply are false and baseless hence denied. The relevant paras of the OA are reiterated.

Para 4.4 & 4.5:

Need no rejoinder.

Para 4.6 to 4.13:

The contents of para 4.6 to 4.13 of the

reply are false and baseless hence denied. It has been wrongly stated by the respondents that allocation of zone was done by them as per DOP&T OM dated 04.06.2010. It is clear from the allocation done by the respondents that they have given double benefit to the reserved category candidates inasmuch as, when the SCs, STs, OBCs were allocated zone of their choice against reserved vacancies by reviewing the allocation so as to ensure that the candidates of reserved category got higher merit are not made to suffer vis-vis the candidates of same category selected against reserved points, the respondents were required to ensure that vacancies meant for general categories are not given to the reserved category. However, the respondents have acted in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as they adjusted reserved category candidates against general slot inspite of being lower in merit. The instructions have been misinterpreted by the respondents and the same is evident from respondents reply. The respondents have

failed to pointed out even one word about transferring the vacancies meant for general category to reserved category contention category candidate. regarding candidate So far as the of No. respondents last general

allocation rank

having

SLD/00347,

SLD/0539 & SLD/00439 to Delhi, Jaipur & Lucknow are concerned, it is humbly submitted that the merit got restricted to were aforesaid rank wrongly as the general to reserved

vacancies

transferred

category candidates malafidly. If all the general vacancies were given to general candidates, the applicants would have got their respective zone as per preference and prayed in the OA. The relevant paras of the OA are reiterated.

Para 4.14 & 4.15:

The contents of para 4.14 & 4.15 of the

reply are false and baseless hence denied. The respondents have wrongly stated that they have allocated zones in accordance with DOP&T OM. In fact, the allocation has not been done fairly and the same has been admitted by the respondents in reply to para 4.15. It has been clearly admitted that there were total 180 general vacancies and 82 vacancies from aforesaid 180 vacancies were given to reserved category candidates without any justification. The respondents have not given any justification for giving

general vacancies to reserved category candidates having low merit.

REPLY TO GROUNDS

Para A to O:

The contents of para A to O of the reply are false

and baseless hence denied. It has been wrongly stated by the respondents that they have allocated zones as per merit. In fact, the respondents have deliberately concealed the material fact and tried to justify their illegality by giving few examples as pointed out by the applicants in their OA. The respondents have nowhere pleaded that the vacancies of general category have not been given to reserved category malafidly and in violation of instructions. It has been wrongly at rank pleaded No. that OBC category SLD/1026,

candidates

SLD/1024,

SLD/1038 & SLD/1300 have been allocated zones against reserved vacancies. The respondents have not annexed even a single document to prove the said contention. reiterated. The relevant paras of the OA are

Para 6 & 7:

The contents of para 6 & 7 of the reply are false

and baseless hence denied.

Para 8 & 9:

The contents of para 8 & 9 of the reply are false

and baseless hence denied. The OA is full of merits and deserves to be allowed.

In view of the above it is humbly prayed that the OA filed by the applicants may be allowed.

APPLICANTS Through Date : Place: New Delhi Verification: Verified at New Delhi that the contents of the above mentioned rejoinder are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and there is nothing false. M.K. Bhardwaj Advocate Delhi High Court

APPLICANTS

IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA NO. 3292/2012 IN THE MATTER OF: P.K. Dabas & Ors. Vs. UOI & ORS. INDEX S. No 1 Particular of the Documents REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF APPLICANTS. Page No. THE ...RESPONDENTS ...APPLICANTS

Through Delhi Dated M.K. Bhardwaj Advocate Delhi High Court. 584, Vikas Kunj, Vikas Puri, New Delhi