Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K.N.Shini vs The National Institute Of Fisheries on 23 June, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Ernakulam Bench
OA No.977/2013
Tuesday, this the 23rd day of June, 2015
CORAM
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR.R.RAMANUJAM, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
K.N.Shini, 31 years
W/o Sujith Kumar K.S.,
Kalathiparambil House, Njarakal P.O.
Valakkadavu, Ernakulam 682 505 Applicant
(By advocate: Mrs. M.A.Waheeda Babu)
Versus
1. The National Institute of Fisheries
Post Harvest Technology and Training represented by
its Director, Four Shore Road, Kochi 16.
2. The Employment Exchange
North Paravur 683 513
represented by the Employment Officer.
3. Sovimon V
S/o I.P.Vijayappan Pillai
Vembanezhathu House
Poilassery Bhagom, Vaikom Post
Kottayam 686 141
4. Vipin K.S.
S/o Shanmughan, Karolil House
P.O. Vemballoor, S.N.Puram
Kodungallur, Thrissur District.
5. Seena O.S.
D/o Late Sivaraman
Odasseril House, Maliankara P.O.
Ernakulam 683 516
6. Rajesh P.K.
S/o V.Kuttappan, Punnakkattu
Parambil House
Pallilamkara P.O.
Ernakulam 683 516
7. Dr.M.K.Venu
Madathedathu House
Neravathu Road, Kundanoor, Maradu
working as Consultant, The National
Institute of Fisheries Post Harvest
Technology and Training. Respondents
(By advocate: Mr. S.Ramesh for R1
Mr.M.Rajeev, GP for R2
Mr. B.Unnikrishna Kaimal for R3, 5 & 6
Mr.Shafik M.A for R4
ORDER
By Mr.R.Ramanujam, Administrative Member Applicant has filed this OA against selection of respondents 3 to 6 in the vacancies of Fish Processing Worker Grade III treating all the vacant posts as unreserved non-priority category. The applicant claims that she belongs to the OBC category for which reservation is available and she is fully qualified and eligible to be appointed to the said post. However, when Annexure A1 requisition was made by respondents 1 & 2, all the 4 posts were included in the unreserved category, which resulted in the second respondent advising the first respondent that there were no qualified hands registered with them. Accordingly, the first respondent invited applications from qualified candidates as per Annexure A5 notification dated 16.11.12. The applicant responded to the notification and applied for the post along with requisite certificates showing her qualifications and experience. She was called for interview on 10.7.2013. However, respondents 3 to 6 were selected for appointment although they did not have the required experience. Also the 3rd and 5th respondents had much higher qualification than prescribed for the post. She also claims that there are now 8 vacancies of Fish Processing Worker available and she could be given appointment to any one of these posts. She has already submitted A7 representation to respondent No.1, which has not been considered favourably.
2. The first respondent in their reply have submitted that 4 vacancies of Processing Worker Grade III in the Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200 + GP Rs. 1800 had arisen on various dates in 2010 and 2011. As per the reservation roster, all the vacancies fell under the unreserved general category. Under the existing Recruitment Rules for the post of Processing Worker, the method of recruitment is by direct recruitment and the age limit is 18-28 (5 years age relaxation for SC/ST and 3 years for OBC). The qualifications prescribed are that the candidates should be (i) literate, should be able to read and write (ii) 5 years' experience in processing of fish and prawns in fish processing plants. The posts were originally in Group 'D' category but as per 6 th CPC recommendations, all the existing Group 'D' posts were to be upgraded to Group-C for which the minimum educational qualification was SSLC/ITI. For those who did not possess these qualifications, training was to be given before raising them to the Group-C pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 with GP of Rs.1800. The institute has acted accordingly and the relevant Recruitment Rules are also being amended to indicate the revised Pay Band and revised educational qualifications. Since Group-C&D vacancies were filled by notifying the same though employment exchange, requisition was forwarded to the Divisional Employment Exchange in the prescribed format. However, the Employment Exchange by letter dated 2.6.2012 informed that candidates as per the requisition were not available and hence the Exchange had no objection to the vacancies being advertised (Annexure R1). The allegation that the applicant possessed the requisite qualification and therefore the Employment Exchange should have proposed her name for appointment does not concern respondent No.1 as it could only be a grievance against the Employment Exchange. The Institute constituted a committee under the Deputy Director (Processing & Marketing) as Chairman and the Processing Technologists Accounts Officer, Marketing Officer and Processing Technologists and NIFPHATT Vizag Unit as Members for screening and scrutinizing the applications received in response to the advertisement. A copy of the recommendations of the committee has been placed as Annexure A2. The applicant was one among the short listed candidates. An interview was conducted by the committee comprising of the following Members:-
(i) Sri Jai Singh Meena, Deputy Director - Chairman
(ii) Dr.M.K.Venu, Processing Technologist - Member
(iii) Sri P.V.Ravindran Nair, Accounts Officer - Member
(iv) Sri Varghese John, Marketing Officer - Member
(v) Sri K.K.Mohammed Basheer,
Processing Technologist, NIFPHATT,
Vizag Unit - Member
(vi) Sri G.D.Rajeev, Asst. General Manager,
Matsyafed - External Member
Based on the performance of the candidates in the interview, four candidates were selected who have been appointed to the post of Processing Worker after the requisite verification of character and antecedents. They have all joined duty and are working at present. The request of the applicant to be considered against one of the eight vacancies cannot be accepted as the respondent No.1 is required to follow the due procedure for filling up the vacancies. The appointment cannot be made based on representation by the candidate not selected in the previous round. The fact that the applicant was called for interview would indicate that the benefit of 3 years' age relaxation admissible to OBC candidates was granted to her as otherwise she was already 30 years of age in 2012. The allegation that the respondents 3-6 were not at all eligible to be considered for appointment is false and basseless. Possessing the higher qualification than the prescribed minimum is not a disqualification for consideration on any post, contends the first respondent.
3. The second respondent in their reply statement have submitted that the applicant could not be sponsored for the job as she was over aged as on 21.3.2012 in terms of the upper age limit of 28 years prescribed. The vacancies were notified as un-reserved and non-priority. Age relaxation is allowed only if it is solely reserved for OBC/SC/ST categories as the case may be. Candidates competing for general vacancies should have all the qualifications under the criteria such as age, experience, number of chances in written examination etc., as applicable to general candidates. Annexure R2(c) document has been referred to in support of this stand.
4. Respondents 3-6 oppose the plea of the applicant on the ground that applicant has not even quoted any rule or order which prescribes reservation for OBCs as and when appointments are made. The respondents 3-6 had been selected through a due process and they have nothing to do with what transpired between respondent 1 and respondent 2 before the open advertisement was issued. In any case, the applicant had applied in response to the advertisement and participated in the process. She is, therefore, estopped from challenging the process after the selections have been made and the selected candidates have been appointed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondents. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant's case was not duly considered although she was eligible and a vacancy should have been reserved for OBC candidate. Had respondent No.1 correctly intimated the position to the Employment Exchange, her name would have been sponsored and she would have been appointed without going through the process of advertisement. She also alleged that the certificates regarding eligibility produced by the private respondents were not genuine. The certificate at Annexure R3(e) has not been verified by the Labour Officer concerned. The certificate at Annexure R3 (b) is not an experience certificate. Annexure R3 (g) is similar to Annexure R3(e) as this certificate also does not carry any verification. Annexure R3(h) shows only the present status of the person concerned and it is also not an experience certificate. Annexure R3(i) and R3(j) though genuine are not experience certificates. Annexure R3 (k) carries no authentication. Annexure R4(b) is applicable only to Graduate Apprentices. Respondent 1 did not carry out their primary duty of checking the documents.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 pointed out that a proper notification was issued inviting applications from eligible candidates against which 27 persons had applied. Their certificates were carefully and thoroughly examined. Nowhere is it stated in the notification that the certificates issued should be cross checked by the Labour Officer concerned and, therefore, there was no malpractice in the selection. A similar plea has been taken by the respondents 3 to 6. They argued that the certificates produced by them were genuine. The requirement of submitting attested copies of certificates does not mean that the certificates should be attested by the Labour Officer concerned. It was also pleaded that once a person participates in a selection process and subsequently fails the selection, he/she cannot question the process of selection.
7. We have carefully considered the pleadings and the arguments presented during the hearing. The applicant appears to have filed this OA on the presumption that at least one of the four posts advertised would come under reservation for the OBC category. Her main plea is that if an OBC candidate was required and the Employment Exchange had been duly notified of the same, the Employment Exchange would have sponsored her name. In that event, respondent No.1 would have had no option but to select and appoint her. On the other hand, respondent 1 has strongly refuted the contention of the applicant and pointed out that as per post based reservation roster, all the four posts advertised were to be filled by general candidates. In view of this, the applicant is not entitled to any preferential appointment. In the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 namely, the Employment Exchange, it has been pointed out that reserved candidates competing for general vacancies should possess all the qualifications and other critieria such as age, experience, number of chances in written examination etc as prescribed for general candidates (Annexure R2(c).
8. In the light of this position, it is not clear how the applicant was allowed to participate in the selection process as she was admittedly over aged in terms of the age prescribed for the general candidates. If the applicant was not even eligible to compete in the selection process and her claim that at least one of the four vacant posts should have been reserved for OBC is not supported by any authentic documents such as the reservation roster, she would have no locus standi to question the process by which respondents 3 to 6 were appointed. Learned counsel for the applicant took us through various documents which were certificates produced by the respondents 3 to 6 to contend that the condition of minimum experience required for appointment to the post was not fulfilled by them. It was also hinted that some of the certificates have been authenticated by a person who was subsequently a Member of the Selection Committee and, therefore, he had a personal interest in the selection of particular candidates. We do not want to go into the details of this allegation as the applicant has not been able to establish prima facie her locus in the matter. Respondent 1 is also correct in taking the plea that she could not be considered for the additional vacancies that had arisen except through the due procedure prescribed for filling up of such posts. No appointment could be granted to individual based on a representation.
9. In view of the above, we find that the OA is totally misconceived and fit to be dismissed. We do so without any order as to costs.
(R.Ramanujam) (N.K.Balakrishnan) Administrative Member Judicial Member aa.