According to the said advertisement the recruitment was to be made zonewise on the basis of separate merit list drawn for each zone in respect of candidates who appeared at the centres within the same zone.
In the writ petitions also referred to above filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the same selection process and select list has been challenged by the petitioners of the said writ petitions.
The Commission will among other things companyduct terminations whenever required for recruitment to the posts within their purview and for ensuring that as far as possible the actual recruitment is made on a zonal basis so as to enable candidates from different regions to be absorbed in the vacancies arising within the respective regions, the examinations would be held as far as possible on different centres and successful candidates posted, to the extent possible to their home states regions.
322/1995 dismissing the appellants application at the admission state challenging the selection process of various posts in pursuance of an advertisement by the Staff Selection Commission published in Employment New of 10 16th July, 1993 and the select list prepared and published in pursuance thereto, while Civil Appeal No.
The number of vacancies was, however, number stated as the firm number of vacancies had number been determined and the reservation of SC ST, Ex servicemen and the physically handicapped persons was to be taken into account as per position reported in each department for each category of posts.
emphasis supplied The said Subordinate Service Commission hereinafter referred to as Commission published an advertisement on 10 16th July, 1993 in the Employment News inviting applications for the selection of candidates to the posts of I Preventive Officers, II Examiner, III Inspector of Central Excise, IV Inspector of Income tax, V Assistant Enforcement Officers in the Directorate of Enforcement and VI Gr.
438/1995 dismissing the application at the admission stage challenging the said selection process and the select list as aforesaid.
The Tribunal relying on the decision of this Court in Om Prakash Vs.
of India and in the subordinate offices except those posts for which recruitment is made by the Railway Service Commission Staff in the offices of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Accountants General and industrial establishments.
The appellants were thus denied the opportunity of companypeting with the candidates of other centres.
II of Delhi Administration Subordinate Services.
Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal and appellants and the petitioners have approached this Court for redress.
With Civil Appeal No.
The relevant portion of the said advertisement which relates to the zone wise process of selection of candidates for the said posts as stated in paragraph No.
224/1995 and 395/1995 J U D G M E N T Faizan Uddin, J. This Civil Appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal in O.A. No.
Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellants companytended that the zone wise process of selection adopted by the Commission did number provide equal opportunity to the candidates appearing in different zones though the companypetitive examination was same in all the zones.
5112/1995 and Writ Petitions No.
In the aforesaid Government resolution, the functions of the Subordinate Services Commission companystituted by the Government are stated in para 3 thereof, the relevant part of which reads as under The Subordinate Services Commission will make recruitment to number technical Class III posts in the departments of the Govt.
On the recommendations of the Administrative Reforms Commission the Government of India Department of Personnel and Administration Reforms passed a resolution on November 4, 1975 whereby a Subordinate Services Commission was companystituted for the purposes of recruitment to Non Technical Class III posts in the departments of the Government of India and in the subordinate offices.
5112/1995 has been preferred by the appellants of the said appeal against the order dated 7th March, 1995 passed by the aforesaid Tribunal in O.A. No.
