Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
N Subramani vs National Institute Of Mental Health And ... on 18 August, 2023
1
OA.No.170/00223/2020/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00223/2020
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
N. Subramani
S/o late Shri Nanjappa
Aged about 36 years
R/at No. 6, Abbaiah Layout,
Kodichikkanahalli,
IIMB Post, Near Mahaveera Palm Apartment,
Bangalore - 76 .... Applicant
(By Shri M. Subramanya Bhat, Advocate)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi-11
2. The National Institute of
Mental Health and Neuro Science (NIMHANS)
Bangalore-29,
Represented by the Director.
3. The Registrar,
The National Institute of
2
OA.No.170/00223/2020/CAT/BANGALORE
Mental Health and Neuro Science (NIMHANS)
Bangalore-29
4. Shri Somashekhar R,
Major in age,
Father's name not known to the applicant,
Working as Driver,
National Institute of
Mental Health and Neuro Science (NIMHANS)
Bangalore-29
5. Shri Meghanatha Rao D
Major in age,
Father's name not known to the applicant,
Working as Driver,
National Institute of
Mental Health and Neuro Science (NIMHANS)
Bangalore-29 ...Respondents
(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Senior Panel Counsel for Respondent No. 1,
Shri K. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate for Respondents No. 2 & 3 and
Shri M. Narayana Bhat, Advocate for Respondents No. 4 & 5)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order declaring the selection and appointment of Respondents No. 4 and 5 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, capricious and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India;3
OA.No.170/00223/2020/CAT/BANGALORE
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing Respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider the candidature of the applicant for the post of Driver in terms of the Notification bearing No. NIMH/PER(6)/RECT/ADVT-2016-17 dated 21.1.2017 vide Annexure-A2 if he found qualified and eligible in the selection process, to meet the ends of justice;
c) Pass any other Order or Direction that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that the 2nd respondent notified recruitment notification for appointment of Drivers in its hospital vide Notification dated 31.12.2014. Selection process in terms of the notification was also completed. Shri Madana Kumar S, Shri Nanda Kumar B, Shri C. Nagendra and Shri V. Ramesha were selected, however, Respondent No. 2 cancelled the whole selection process in terms of the DOPT letter dated 29.12.2015 by misreading the content and intent of the said order. Thereafter, 2nd respondent issued one more Notification dated 21.01.2017 for appointment of seven posts of Drivers under unreserved category. Applicant applied for the post of Driver in terms of the said notification as he possessed 45.28 % marks in SSLC. Thereafter, the applicant was intimated to appear 4 OA.No.170/00223/2020/CAT/BANGALORE for a Written Test/Skill Test to be held on 10.10.2019. Applicant duly attended the Written and Skill Test. However, the result of the test was not published by the 2nd respondent. Meanwhile, Shri Madana Kumar and others filed OA No. 906/2016 before this Tribunal for a direction to appoint them to the post of Drivers in terms of the selection done pursuant to the Notification dated 31.12.2014. This Tribunal as per the order dated 02.11.2018 disposed of the OA by issuing a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the claim of the aforesaid 4 candidates and if they found eligible, to consider them for appointment under the selection done on 31.12.2014. Since the result of the Written Test and Skill Test was not published/made known to the applicant, he filed applications under RTI Act on 26.10.2019 and 14.11.2019 seeking certain details. As per the information received, applicant came to know about the appointment of 4 candidates amongst 9 provisionally selected, however, Respondent No. 3 has refused to disclose the marks secured by the selected/appointed candidates. 3rd respondent has also declined to furnish the copies of the appointment letters issued to the selected candidates including Respondents No. 4 and 5.
5
OA.No.170/00223/2020/CAT/BANGALORE
3. It is the grievance of the applicant that though he was qualified for appointment to the post of Driver, official respondents have appointed Respondents No. 4 and 5 who did not possess the requisite qualification. It is the contention of the applicant that Respondent No. 4 has not passed SSLC and Respondent No. 5 has produced fabricated document. These respondents have been picked up for appointment in order to favour them. Thus, being aggrieved by his non-selection to the post of Driver and also challenging the selection and appointment of Respondent No. 4 and 5, this OA has been filed.
4. Learned counsel Shri M. Subramanya Bhat representing the applicant, reiterating the grounds urged in the OA, submitted that the official respondents have favoured the Respondents No. 4 and 5 though they are not the qualified candidates for appointment to the post of Drivers since Respondent No. 4 has not passed SSLC and Respondent No. 5 has produced fabricated documents.
5. Detailed separate reply statement has been filed by the official respondents and Respondents No. 4 and 5. Learned counsel Shri K Prabhakar Rao representing the official respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted, the 2nd respondent Institute vide recruitment 6 OA.No.170/00223/2020/CAT/BANGALORE notification dated 31.12.2014 invited applications to fill various posts including the post of Drivers. As per the instructions of the 1st respondent vide DOPT order dated 29.12.2015, the Institute has cancelled the recruitment process relating to the post of Drivers. Four candidates Shri Madana Kumar S, Shri Nanda Kumar B, Shri C. Nagendra and Shri V. Ramesha had filed OA No. 906/2016 before this Tribunal to complete the selection process as per the notification dated 31.12.2014. This Tribunal vide order dated 02.11.2018 directed the 2nd respondent to complete the selection process and grant appointment to eligible candidates. The applicant has applied to the post of Driver as per notification dated 21.01.2017. The interview was held on 12.04.2019. The Selection Committee was formed consisting of 7 members including an external expert form Regional Transport Authority (Karnataka). Out of 9 candidates, the committee selected 4 candidates for the post of Drivers. As per the Selection Committee Report, the applicant secured 07 out of 20 marks whereas the selected candidates have secured more marks. The driving test was conducted by the competent authority - RTO Karnataka - for all the candidates including the applicant. The time set was 3 minutes. The applicant has taken 7.01 minutes. Having regard to these aspects, 7 OA.No.170/00223/2020/CAT/BANGALORE the applicant was not selected as per the Selection Committee proceedings dated 10.10.2019. Having failed in the selection process of skill test and interview, the applicant cannot question the selection process of the contesting respondents. Hence, the application deserves to be rejected.
6. Learned counsel Shri Narayan Bhat representing Respondents No. 4 and 5 submitted that both the Respondents No. 4 and 5 possessed SSLC qualification. Denying the allegation of favouritism made by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 4th and 5th respondents, learned counsel submitted that the entire selection process was made in a transparent manner and no discrimination was done. The applicant being unsuccessful in the selection process, cannot challenge the selection of the Respondents No. 4 and 5. Accordingly, seeks for rejection of OA.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
8. In view of the dispute raised by the applicant inasmuch as the eligibility of the Respondents No. 4 and 5 regarding passing 8 OA.No.170/00223/2020/CAT/BANGALORE of SSLC (10th standard), this Tribunal had directed the learned counsel appearing for Respondents No. 2 and 3 to furnish the copies of the 10th standard/SSLC marks card of the Respondents No. 4 and 5 submitted. Accordingly, learned counsel Shri K Prabhakar Rao representing Respondents No. 2 and 3 has furnished the original SSLC marks cards of the Respondents No. 4 and 5. We have perused the same. The said marks card, in our considered opinion, fulfils the eligibility criteria as far as the educational qualification of the Respondents No. 4 and 5 to get appointment for the post of Driver in terms of the recruitment notification dated 21.01.2017 issued by the Respondent No. 2. Keeping the photocopies of the same for record purposes, we have requested the Registry to return the original documents to the learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 and 3. As such, the main ground of challenge that the Respondents No. 4 and 5 did not possess the required educational qualification of SSLC deserves to be rejected.
9. Annexure R1 - Copy of the proceedings of the Selection Committee consisting of 7 members indicates about the number of posts advertised - 07 (UR), number of candidates called for interview - 09, number of candidates attended the interview - 08. 9
OA.No.170/00223/2020/CAT/BANGALORE The details of the marks obtained by the candidates is shown as under:
NATIONAL INSTITUE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES, INSTITUE OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE, BENGALURU 29 NO. NIMH/PER(6) RECT/ADVT-4)FAC/2019-20 Dt:
17.05.2019 RECRUITMENT FOR THE POST OF DRIVER (ORDINARY GRADE) HELD ON 10.10.2019 Sl. CANDIDATE NAME Marks Obtained No. 1 SRI JEEVAN P 05/20 (FIVE) 2 SRI MEGHANATH RAO D 17/20 (SEVENTEEN) 3 SRI NANDA KUMAR B 14/20 (FOURTEEN) 4 SRI NAGENDRA C 12/20 (TWELVE) 5 SRI PUSHPARAJ A ABSENT 6 SRI RAKESH MALUIYA 07/20 (SEVEN) 7 SRI V. RAMESHA 06/20 (SIX) 8 SRI SOMASHEKAR R 17/20 (SEVENTEEN) 9 SRI SUBRAMANI N 07/20 (SEVEN) Out of the 9 candidates, names of the 4 candidates have been recommended. It is apparent that the selected candidates have scored more marks than the applicant.
10. It is trite that selection process cannot be challenged after participation therein, after its completion upon failure to get selected/appointed (vide Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Surender Singh and Ors. reported in (2019) 8 SCC Page 67).
However, in view of the specific allegation made against the 10 OA.No.170/00223/2020/CAT/BANGALORE Respondents No. 4 and 5 for not possessing SSLC qualification, we had directed the official respondents to place their marks cards and the same being placed before us as discussed in the preceding paragraph no. 8, the challenge made to the selection process by the applicant, an unsuccessful candidate, is liable to be rejected. OA is bereft of merit.
11. Resultantly, OA stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ksk/