Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Kiran B vs Bhabha Atomic Research Centre on 26 September, 2024
1
O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00382/2023
& M.A 513/2023
Order Reserved on: 10.9.2024
Date of Order: 26.09.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.K SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Sri.Kiran B
S/o.Babashankar K
Aged about 28 years
Worked as Scientific Assistant/C,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre - Rare Materials Project,
P.B No.1, Yelwal (P.O)
Mysuru - 571 130 ...Applicant
(By party-in-person)
Vs.
1. The Union of India
Represented by its Secretary
Department of Atomic Energy
Anushakti Bhavan, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Marg
Mumbai - 400 001
2. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
(Rare Materials Project)
Represented by its Director
P.B No.1, Yelwal (P.O)
2
O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE
Mysuru - 571 130
3. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
Represented by its Controller
Central Complex, Trombay
Mumbai - 400 085 ......Respondents
(By Advocate Shri.N.Amaresh for R 1 to 3)
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 for claiming the reliefs as explained in paragraph 8(I), (II) and (III) of the Original Application. We will take these reliefs, one by one, as each of them need closure look.
2. The reliefs are claimed based on various grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(1) to 5(11) of the Original Application. The brief fact of the case as mentioned in the synopsis runs from paragraphs (i) to (x) from pages.3 to 11.
3. On notice, the respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have countered the arguments of the applicant. A 3 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE rejoinder has also been filed by the applicant.
4. The case came up for final hearing on 10.9.2024. The applicant was present in person and Shri.N.Amaresh was present for the respondents and arguments of both the parties were heard.
5. We have carefully gone through the entire records and considered the rival contentions.
6. From the very look of the reliefs claimed, the grounds for relief and the synopsis, they are too long indicating that the applicant himself is unable to clearly and precisely define what he wants. Let us examine them one by one.
7. Reliefs claimed:
The first relief claimed mentions the following:-
" (i) This Hon'ble Tribunal is urged to recognize the violation of Article 14, 19,23 and address the exploitation endured during applicant training period. Applicant seek justice, fairness, and equitable treatment, ensuring that both TSOs and Category I Trainees are afforded equal opportunities for employment and fair consideration in exchange for applicant commitment and labour 4 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE during the training period. Applicant appeal to this esteemed Tribunal to safeguard applicant rights and uphold the principles of fairness and equality in the face of such discriminatory practices and exploitative contracts. On simple examination of the above paragraph, it is clear that this relief is speaking about certain provisions of the Constitution, the applicant's right and about the principles of fairness and equality. And this speaks of discriminatory practices and exploitative contracts also.
But nowhere has it related itself to any infringement of service rules or related matter which can be the subject matter of adjudication before the Tribunal. Hence it is clear that this paragraph actually does not claim any specific relief. It is too bland to be understood.
The second relief reads the following:
(ii) I humbly request this Hon'ble Tribunal to grant me appropriate compensation as I have been a victim of the aforementioned exploitative practices. Considering the discriminatory stipend disparity, whereby my stipend as a Category I Trainee is significantly lower than that of a Trainee Scientific Officer (TSO), and the exploitation I have endured during my training period at the hands of the respondent. Instead of providing me with proper training, the respondent has forced or partly forced me to work full time at significantly low wages for a job equivalent to 5 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE that of regular employees, I urge the Hon'ble Tribunal to award me twenty-two times the gross salary of a Scientific Assistant/C, including any applicable bonuses, for the two years of my training period. This compensation is sought as redress for the unjust exploitation I have endured due to the violation of my fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 23 of the Constitution of India, and in light of the provisions outlined in the Bonded labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. Furthermore, due to the violation of Article 19, I have suffered irreparable and irreversible losses, particularly the loss of an opportunity to become a Group A gazetted officer in BARC. The wrongful restraint imposed on me during my training period denied me the chance to explore and pursue the path of becoming a Group A gazetted officer, hindering my career growth and prospects. In the light of the grave consequences caused by the violation of my fundamental rights, I earnestly seek just and fair compensation. I request the Tribunal to grant me compensation equal to twenty-two times the gross salary of a Scientific Officer/C to Scientific Officer/OS for the total duration of service that I would have obtained in the absence of such wrongful restraint compensation under Section 65, 70, of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, for the violation of applicable laws and the irreparable losses suffered during the period of wrongful restraint, including the loss of opportunity to become a Group A gazetted officer in BARC.
The loss of the opportunity to become a Group A gazetted officer in BARC has had significant and detrimental effects on my professional trajectory. The compensation sought is a measure of redress for the damages incurred and serves to address the irreparable harm caused by the wrongful restraint. I humbly 6 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE request this Hon'ble Tribunal to consider the gravity of the situation and the impact of the violation on my career prospects, and grant the requested compensation, providing me with some measure of justice and relief for the unjust actions that have affected my future prospects.
Simple reading of the above shows again that it is very lengthy and loosely worded and the applicant himself in his mind is not clear as to what he wants to agitate before this Tribunal and what relief he is actually claiming. He is unable to express it in precise terms and specific words. He wants appropriate compensation for exploitative practices, and he is speaking of a discriminatory stipend disparity between Category I Trainee and Trainee Scientific Officer (TSO,) and as he was forced to work full time at low wages, he wants 22 times the gross salary of a Scientific Officer/C and an applicable bonus for two years for his training period. He also speaks of Article 14 and 23 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and violation of Article 19 of the Constitution and he is suffering from loss of an opportunity to become a Group A gazetted officer in BARC and wrongful restraint. He further states that compensation under section 65, 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and seeks to consider the gravity and the impact of the violation on his career 7 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE prospects.
The whole paragraph again is quite vague and does not clearly relate to any specific rule/provision laid down in service condition or service rule or recruitment which has been infringed by the respondents which could be the subject matter of this O.A before an Administrative Tribunal. The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 provisions and the provisions of Indian Contract Act, 1872 etc. are to be dealt with by the appropriate adjudicatory bodies as per their respective laws and it is not clear as to what the applicant would like to claim before this Tribunal under those enactments. But we will examine some of the issues which he eludes when he says equitable treatments and stipend disparity and partly forced to work full time and wrongful restrain etc with reference to his other averments in paragraph 5 in the grounds for relief in this O.A subsequently, barring which we conclude that those other averments are not relevant before this Tribunal, as we are unable to see any of the subject taken up are related to either any recruitment or condition of service.
In paragraph 8 (III), the applicant claims following:
III) I humbly request this Hon'ble Tribunal to 8 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE take strict action against the representatives of the respondent who are responsible for the violations and exploitations I have endured.
The acts of discrimination, unjust stipend disparity, denial of fundamental rights, and imposition of wrongful restraint have caused significant harm and irreparable damage to my career and prospects. I urge the Tribunal to ensure that those responsible for these exploitative practices are held accountable for their actions. Punitive measures should be taken to deter such violations in the future and to safeguard the rights and interests of individuals like me who have suffered due to these unjust practices. Justice and fairness demand that those responsible for perpetrating such violations be brought to book and appropriate penalties be imposed. I trust in the impartiality and wisdom of this Hon'ble Tribunal to take necessary actions and provide me with the redressal and justice that I seek. Hence, I humbly request this Hon'ble Tribunal to render a judgment that not only grants me the compensation I deserve but also ensures that those responsible for the violations and exploitations faced by me are appropriately punished in accordance with the law. "
Simple examination of this again shows the applicant himself is unclear and confused and suffer from lack of words from what he wants to ask as reliefs.
8. The sum and substance which comes out in the third paragraph is that the applicant wants this Tribunal to take strict 9 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE action against the representatives of the respondents who are responsible for violation, exploitation, discrimination and wrongful restraint.
9. Again, it is not clear under which provision of service law he is trying to claim this type of relief. We are unable to see any subject either related to recruitment or conditions of service there in. The 'statement of object and reasons' for the Administrative Tribunal as defined under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 reads the following:
" STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS Article 323A of the Constitution stipulates that Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunal of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any Corporation owned or controlled by the Government.
2. The Bill seeks to give effect to the aforesaid constitutional provision by providing for the establishment of an Administrative Tribunal for the Union and a separate Administrative Tribunal for a State or a Joint Administrative Tribunal for two or more States. The Bill also provides for-
(a) the jurisdiction, powers (including the power to punish for contempt) and authority which may be exercised by each Tribunal;
(b) the procedure (including provision as to limitation and rules of evidence) to be followed by the State Tribunals;10
O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(c) exclusion of the jurisdiction of all courts, except that of the Supreme Court under article 136 of the Constitution relating to service matters;
(d) the transfer to each Administrative Tribunal of any suit or other proceedings pending before any court or other authority immediately before the establishment of such Tribunal as would have been within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal if the causes of action on which such suits or proceedings are based had arisen after such establishment.
3. The establishment of Administrative Tribunal under the aforesaid provision of the Constitution has become necessary since a large number of cases relating to service matters are pending before the various courts. It is expected that the setting up of such Administrative Tribunals to deal exclusively with service matters would go a long way in not only reducing the burden of the various courts and thereby giving them more time to deal with other cases expeditiously but would also provide to the persons covered by the Administrative Tribunals speedy relief in respect of their grievances. "
Simple reading of the above shows that the focus of this Administrative Tribunal under the said Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to deal with the disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any Corporation owned or controlled by the Government. Hence each relief must be related clearly and precisely to recruitment and conditions of service laid down.11
O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE
10. With reference to the above three reliefs claimed, on examination, what emerges is that the applicant's main grievance is that a Diploma holder candidate like him who hold Category I trainee post is not given equitable, fair and just treatment when compared to the Trainee Scientific Officer (TSO for short) and their trainings are different and compensation are different and also some of the service conditions gives the applicant a feeling that the conditions laid down are exploitative having nature of post and resembles bonded labour with wrongful restrain for which he holds the respondent authorities responsible and he feels that he has right to get compensation from them and also under some provisions the respondent authorities should be penalized or strictly acted against them.
11. The applicant has mentioned various grounds for relief. In paragraph 5(1), mainly mentions that he is a Category I Trainee and a Category I trainee receive a meager stipend of Rs.16,000/- per month which is only 35.6% of the Basic Pay of the post which is Rs.44,900/- whereas the TSO is entitled to get 98% of their Basic Pay of Rs.56,100/- i.e., about Rs.55,000/- as monthly stipend. The applicant mentions it as exploitative practice and a practice 12 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE amounting to bonded labour and says that the respondents should be proceeded against under the Bonded labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. But this authority is not having any jurisdiction under the said Act.
And it is not understandable how the applicant compared two unrelated services whose service conditions and eligibility conditions are different and distinct. Those conditions were very much clear, distinct and different in the vacancy advertisement. If the applicant was preferring any specific type of service condition and compensation, he should have accordingly obtained proper academic qualification and achieved the eligibility criteria and applied appropriately. He was free to apply anywhere else, including the respondent organization for any of the posts for which he was eligible. Comparison between two unrelated posts cannot substantiate a case for relief before this Tribunal.
The applicant himself has filed the Advertisement No.BARC/MYS/01/2018 dated 16.08.2018 as Annexure A1 which clearly shows that for the Stipendiary Trainees Category-I, it was mentioned that the trainee will get stipend of Rs.16000/- per month for the first year and Rs.18000/- per month for the second year and they will be eligible for absorption after successful completion of 13 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE training in the entry cadre as Scientific Assistant/C in Level 7 Rs.44,900/-.
The applicant had applied for this specific post, and he had not challenged any of the provisions of this very advertisement No.BARC/MYS/01/2018 dated 16.08.2018 at appropriate time before or while applying for the post, and had not participated in the selection process with protest, keeping his right intact to challenge the same at some later stage. Without challenging the basic document of advertisement at appropriate time, the applicant cannot challenge his own service conditions which was manifestly clear in no uncertain terms in the vacancy notice itself. We do not find that he is challenging this basic document. If the applicant has participated in the selection process without murmur, subsequently after selection and going through the training and related part of his service, at this late stage, the applicant cannot say that the terms of the said selection was adverse to him. We clearly find that, in the said advertisement it was made clear in the section 'Bond" as follows:
" a. Selected candidates will have to furnish an Agreement and an Indemnity Bond for an amount of Rs.4,08,000/- in the prescribed proforma, jointly executed by the candidate and a surety who shall be of the status of a permanent 14 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE Group B Gazetted Officer and above serving under Central or State Government.
b. The selected candidates are required to complete the training and to serve the Department, if offered appointment after the training, for a period of 3 years after absorption and failure to do so will render them liable to pay a sum equivalent to the entire aggregate amount of stipend received by them during the period of training together with interest thereon. "
So from the very beginning, it was made clear that there was an indemnity Bond and there was service conditions laid down. Once that is accepted without murmur with open eyes, at this stage, it is impermissible for the applicant and estoppel applies to him to challenge any of the conditions which were laid down in the said advertisement. The applicant is trying to compare himself with some other category of persons whose terms of selection and appointment as shown in the advertisement were different and distinct, where clearly the persons entering the service were differently qualified and were having different compensation scales.
Hence this ground in paragraph 5.1 has no relevance and quoting Article 14 and 23 of the Constitution and the Bonded labour System (Aboliton) Act 1976 are irrelevant as far as this Tribunal is concerned at this stage. Hence we have given careful consideration 15 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE of the ground made out in paragraph 5(1) and we do not consider any of them to be convincing.
12. In paragraph 5(2), the applicant mentions of serious infringement of his fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution and Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code for wrongful restraint and Section 374 of the Indian Penal Code for unlawful compulsory labour and Section 2 of the Bonded labour System (Abolition) Act 1976 and Section 16,18 and 23 of the Bonded labor System (Abolition) Act 1976 and Section 27 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 etc. But all these provisions are not relevant before this Tribunal and we do not find that any convincing ground is made out in this paragraph under service jurisprudence of infringement of any provisions either related to recruitment or conditions of service of persons appointed to public services as all the conditions which he wants to put forth were clearly mentioned in the Advertisement No.BARC/MYS/01/2018 dated 16.08.2018 which he had not challenged at appropriate time. And with open eyes voluntarily he chose to participate in the selection process and was selected and then he also underwent the training. Now after the training, once he 16 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE is terminated from service, he is coming to challenge the very provisions on which he was selected, before us on various unrelated enactment which are different from the service rules which cannot be agitated before us. Hence we are not convinced that any clear case is made out in paragraph 5(2) of ground for relief also.
13. In paragraph 5(3), the applicant mentions about disparity in the employment prospects following successful training between Trainee Scientific Officers (TSO) and Category I Trainees. He argues that it is against Article 14 of the Constitution and such differential treatment is a violation of the fundamental right to equality guaranteed under the Constitution of India. He also speaks of Section 2 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 etc. Again, he is comparing Category I Trainees and the TSO who are recruited under different vacancy advertisements with different terms and conditions and they are not comparable at all. The respondents have tabulated in detail the differences between the two categories in their statement dated 8.8.2024. Inter-alia other things it mentions the following:-
COMPARITIVE STATEMENT:17
O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE Criteria CAT-I Stipendiary TSO-OCES Trainee Age limit Minimum 18 years and i. General Category -
Maximum 24 years as 26 years.
on the closing date of ii. OBC(Non-Creamy
application, with the Layer) - 29 years
following relaxation: iii. SC/ST - 31 years as
a. Upto a maximum of 5 on the date prescribed
years for SC/SC/ST. in the notification
b. Upto a maximum of 3
years for OBC
candidates for the posts
reserved for OBC
ELIGIBILITY B.Sc (Chemistry) with a For Engineering Diciplines
B.E/B.Tech/B.Sc.
minimum of 60% marks (Engineering)/5 year
Integrated M.Tech. with a
Diploma in Engineering minimum of 60% aggregate
- 3 yers after SSC or 2 marks (or minimum of 6.0
CGPA on a scale of 10 or
years after HSC/BSc., in equivalent)
the relevant trades with
a minimum of 60% Applicants opting to be marks in aggregate in considered on the basis of a Diploma GATE Score in the year 2024, must have GATE-
2022 and/or GATE - 2023 and/or GATE-2024 Score in the same GATE paper/subject as the qualifying degree discipline For Physics Dicipline:
M.Sc or Integrated M. Sc. in Physics/ Applied Physics with specialization in Nuclear Physics, Solid State physics, Condensed matter physics, atomic and molecular physics, Particle/ high Energy physics with Physics and Mathematics at B.Sc./BE/B.Tech/B.Sc.18
O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE (Engg.) or at subsidiary and/or ancillary level in case of 5 year Integrated M.Sc. or B.E/ B.Tech/B. Sc.
(Engg.)/ Integrated M.Tech in "Engineering Physics"
with a minimum of 60%
aggregate marks (or
minimum of 6.0 CGPA on a
scale of 10 or equivalent) in
the qualifying degree.
M. Sc. or Integrated M. Sc.
candidates (other than
those applying with a 5-
year integrated M. Sc.
degree) must additionally
have a minimum of 60%*
aggregate marks (or
minimum of 6.0 CGPA on a
scale of 10 or equivalent) in
B.Sc/B.E/B.Tech./B. Sc.
(Engg.).
Physics postgraduate
applicants opting to be
considered on the basis of
a GATE Score should have
GATE-2022, GATE- 2023
or GATE-2024 score in
"Physics" GATE paper.
SELECTION The selection process On the basis of Online
Examination:
will consist of screening a. Online Examination will METHOD test (Written Exam) and be conducted in each of the interview thereafter. Engineering disciplines and Science disciplines in more than forty cities spread across India.
b. All candidates appearing
for the BARC Online
Examination will be
awarded a BARC Online
Examination Score.
Candidates will be
screened in for Selection
Interview on the basis of
Online Examination Score.
On the basis of GATE
19
O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE score:
Candidates will be screened in for selection interview on the basis of a GATE-2022 and /or GATE-2023 and/or GATE-2024 score in the applicable GATE subject.
SCREENING The Objective typeAll questions of the Online examination comprise of 40 Exam are of objective type TEST: questions which will be of (multiple choice questions one hour duration in with only one correct choice Diploma/B.Sc level subjects.of answer). Each correct 2 ½ marks will be awarded answer fetches 3 marks, for each correct answer and while each incorrect answer ½ mark will be deducted for has a penalty of one mark each Incorrect answer. (-1 mark). No marks are awarded for questions not The candidate has choice of attempted. While answering taking the test in Hindi or a question, the candidate English will not be allowed to choose more than one option as correct answer.
Candidate can skip a question, if he/she wishes.
There will be 100 questions in all. The questions are so designed that a good candidate will be able to answer 100 questions in 120 minutes.
a. Syllabus:
The syllabus for the Online Exam is specific to the Science/Engineering examination discipline which a candidate has selected. The questions are intended to assess the basic understanding of subjects in the area of the Science/Engineering exam discipline selected by the candidate. Emphasis would be on the knowledge and problem-solving ability rather than on the memory of the candidate. General 20 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE English, General Knowledge, Aptitude etc are not assessed.
INTERVIEW Candidates those who have Selection interviews of
cleared the screening test short-listed candidates will
will be called for the be conducted in Mumbai (in
interview. all disciplines except
Final selection and ranking Geology) and Hyderabad
will be based on the (in Geology). Outstation
performance of the applicants will be paid two
candidates in the interview way normal AC-III tier train
and no weightage will be fare to attend selection
given for marks scored in interview, from their
the screening test. registered residential (either
permanent or
communication) address,
by shortest route or actual
fare, whichever is less.
SCOPE OF Selected candidates will be One-year Orientation
given training for 2 years at Course for Engineering
TRAINING Mysuru/Challakere- Graduates and Science
Chitradurga District as Postgraduates will be
decided by BARC, in conducted at the five BARC
various aspects of relevant Training Schools situated at
trades and for meeting Mumbai, Kalpakkam,
stringent requirements of Indore and Hyderabad.
BARC, Mysuru/Challakere-
Chitradurga District. During A Trainee Scientific Officer
the period of Training and (TSO), who scores a
thereafter, the candidates minimum of 50% aggregate
will be required to attend marks on completion of the
round-the-clock shift duties. Training Programme, is
The candidates will not have declared to have passed
any choice/option for any the course successfully
particular training program
and training place.
POST AFTER Upon successful completion Successful completion of
of training and based on the Training Schemes
SUCCESSFUL performance in absorption guarantees employment as
COMPLETION interview at the end of the Scientific Officer "C" in one
OF TRAINING training, trainees will be of the DAE units or Atomic
considered for absorption in Energy Regulatory Board
the post of Scientific with attractive career
Assistant/C in the Level 7 of progression opportunities
the pay matrix with a basic up to the highest echelons.
pay of Rs.44,900/-. In Appointment in all the units
addition to entry pay, shall be as a Scientific
allowances as admissible Officer "C" (SO/C) in the
will be paid under Central Level 10 - Rs.56,100/- of
Government Rules the 7th Central Pay
Commission Pay Matrix.
Appointment will be at the
21
O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE beginning of the pay scale with OCES TSOs getting two or three increments depending on their performance during the OCES programme BOND a. Selected candidates Selected candidates are will have to furnish required to execute an an Agreement and agreement and a Personal an Indemnity Bond Indemnity Bond to serve for an amount of DAE for at least three years equal to the amount after completion of Training. of stipend received during the period of No third-party surety is training in the required. However, the prescribed proforma, TSOs are also required to jointly executed by deposit sum equivalent to the candidate and a the entire aggregate surety who shall be amount of stipend received of the status of a by them during the period permanent Group 'B' of training together with Gazetted Officer and interest thereon. above serving under Central or State Government.
b. The selected
candidates are
required to complete
the training and to
serve the
Department, if
offered appointment
after the training, for
a period of 3 years
after absorption and
failure to do so will
render them liable to
pay a sum
equivalent to the
entire aggregate
amount of stipend
received by them
during the period of
training together with
interest thereon.
Clearly, the two categories of employees are different and distinct and the differences between them cannot substantiate in 22 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE infringement of Article 14 guaranteeing equality in the Constitution of India, as they are from the very beginning different and distinct. Hence, this argument also is not convincing and Indian Contract Act, 1872 is not coming within the scope of this Tribunal, hence, it is clearly irrelevant and we do not find this ground also to be in any way relevant or strengthening the case of the applicant.
14. In paragraph 5.4, the applicant states of discriminatory practice concerning the execution of agreements and indemnity bonds for Trainee Scientific Officers (TSO) and Category I Trainees etc. Basically, the applicant is telling that for the TSO's only personal indemnity bond is taken but for Category I trainees in addition to personal indemnity bond, the 3rd party assurance is taken which the applicant find to be discriminatory and unfair.
But this again was part of their different set of vacancy advertisement and other service conditions. But these two are two different and distinct appointments and their conditions of service are different. In the case of Category I Stipendiary Trainees, they could enter the service at 18 years whereas the TSO's age limit, eligibility, selection method screening test, interview, scope of 23 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE training, post after successful completion of training and bond etc were different and distinct. These conditions were very predefined before the applicant to put his candidature by appearing in the selection process and then after getting selected, he joined and completed the training, after his severance of contract of employment, at this belated stage, he is comparing his own service conditions with someone else whose conditions of service were distinct and different ab initio. Hence, we are clear in our mind that it is not a convincing ground to be agitated before this Tribunal. Hence, this ground also does not make out any clear case for the applicant.
15. In paragraph 5(5), the applicant mentions of glaring disparity in book allowances between TSO and Category I Trainees during their training period etc. Again, it is the same story because they are two different posts where there is no common ground and the comparison between the two is ill-conceived. Hence it is not convincing case to grant relief to the applicant.
24
O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE
16. In paragraph 5(6), the applicant speaks about discriminatory practice in accommodation arrangements between TSO and Category I Trainees during the training period etc. Again the differences have no relevance as they are unrelated post with unrelated various attributes. One cannot compare Bananas with Apples. Hence, this argument does not show any violation of Article 14.
17. Paragraph 5.7 mentions of discriminatory policy concerning the career progression opportunities for TSO and Category I Trainees during their training at the Institute.
Again these are two different sets of employment with its own distinct age limit, eligibility, selection method screening test, interview, scope of training, post after successful completion of training and bond etc as earlier examined. Hence, this argument also has no force.
18. Further in paragraph 5(8), the applicant mentions of discriminatory policy concerning increments during training for TSO and Category I Trainees etc. 25 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE This is not maintainable as they are not comparable posts. What was not ab-initio in their notification for inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post for which the applicant was selected, having clear guidelines on various issues. And the applicant had participated in the said selection process voluntarily, and after being selected, voluntarily chose to join the said cadre and had completed his training. At this belated stage, the applicant is estopped from challenging the very provisions which he had already accepted and experienced and lived through. And it is vague that he is demanding parity with any other employees in the same organization who were appointed on different footing with distinct age limit, eligibility, selection method, screening test, interview, scope of training, post after successful completion of training and bond conditions etc. Hence, we have no doubt in our mind that this argument does not have any merit.
19. Paragraph 5(9) speaks of discriminatory practice concerning travel allowances for Trainee Scientific Officers (TSO) and Category I Trainees during the interview process etc. 26 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE Again it has no relevance as they are not on the same and equal footing where they can be compared reasonably and hence this argument does not hold any water.
20. In paragraph 5(10), the applicant wants to say that there is disparity of training benefits in promotions between TSO and Category I Trainees which is unjust etc. As both two Trainees are selected and appointed on distinct and different footings having different age limit, eligibility, selection method, screening test, interview, scope of training, post given after successful completion of training and bond conditions etc. They are not comparable and so this argument also does not hold any water.
21. In paragraph 5(11), the applicant requests the leave of the Court to present additional contentions, if required etc. No new arguments or contentions were taken up at the time of last hearing, hence this ground has no substance.
Hence, we have no doubts in our mind that none of the grounds taken up by the applicant has any convincing reason which may give us any ground to interfere with the affairs of the respondents.
27
O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE
22. The respondents have rightly summarized in their written submission dated 8.8.2024 that the applicant compared his services as Category I Stipendiary Trainee with the Trainee Scientific Officers (TSO) candidates. They emphasized that it is important to note that the applicant has applied on the basis of a diploma (Group- B post), whereas TSO candidates apply on the basis of an engineering degree holding higher post (Group A post). The applicant has joined the services of Category I Stipendiary Trainee after willingly agreeing to the terms and conditions outlined in the Advertisement No.BARC/MYS/01/2018 issued by Rare Materials Project (RMP), BARC, Mysuru during the year 2018.
23. The respondents further state that the criteria for selection, nature of duties, stipend during the training, pay level are specified in the above advertisement and the qualifications, experience, and the nature of the role of a Scientific Assistant and a Scientific Officer are different and cannot be comparable. The applicant fails to understand the terms and conditions of his offer/job profile and has exaggerated his comparison between a Group 'A' gazetted post and a Group 'B' non-gazetted post. We are convinced that the above 28 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE statement of the respondent department is substantiated fully by the record.
24. The respondents further asserts that the mandates and technical requirements of each departments are also different. Expecting similarity in Recruitment and Promotion policies of two departments (such as ISRO and BARC) with different mandates and Technical requirements is not appropriate. We fully agree with this statement.
25. The respondents further asserts that the Trainee Scientific Officers (TSO) and Category I Trainees are provided with Hostel Accommodation/Residential quarters as per their entitlements and the charges of license fee are also recovered accordingly. It is submitted that, the employment conditions are designed based on organizational needs and do not infringe upon anyone's constitutional rights. There is no discrimination or violation of constitutional rights in structuring employment conditions based on organizational requirements. It is also submitted that under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, the Department of Atomic Energy has been empowered to take suitable 29 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE action on all matters relating to the personnel under the control of the Department.
26. We are in agreement with the submission of the respondents and we find that post-facto comparison by the applicant of his cadre and service conditions with some other higher cadre which are recruited through a very distinct and different conditions pre-laid down in the advertisements with distinct criteria for age limit, eligibility, selection method, screening test, interview, scope of training, post given after successful completion of training and bond conditions imposed which were very distinct and not comparable. And any post-facto such comparison and bringing provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and Indian Contract Act and forced labour to portray such differences are uncalled for, and unjustified, and unreasonable. We are of the considered view that the applicant with open eyes seeing and understanding the conditions as laid down in the advertisement No.BARC/MYS/01/2018 had applied for the post of Stipendiary Trainee Category I. The last date of receipt of applications was on 12.09.2018 and the final result of selected candidates was published on 6.9.2019. Pursuant to the selection, the offer of training was given 30 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE to the applicant on 14.11.2019. The office memorandum appointing the applicant in temporary capacity in BARC as Scientific Assistant/C on probation for a period of one year was issued on 15.2.2022 after completion of training successfully. However, the applicant was terminated on 26.8.2022 as the entire selection process was considered grossly compromised and vitiated leading to irregular recruitments.
27. Clearly, the applicant had not only participated in the selection process as he got selected, and after selection he joined and completed the training and was offered appointment. He went through selection, training and then in service without any murmer or any challenge to any of the pre-laid conditions. But subsequently for some reasons as averred, the appointment of the applicant along with others was terminated due to grossly compromised selection process and at this belated stage on 10.8.2023, the applicant had filed this O.A which basically questions the contents of the advertisement No.BARC/MYS/01/2018 issued in August 2018 post facto. The last date of receipt of application was on 12.09.2018. The applicant is estopped from questioning the contents of this advertisement and compare his service conditions with some other unrelated cadres 31 O.A.Nos.170/00382/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE whose service conditions are entirely different and distinct and not comparable. Such comparisons are impermissible, ill-thought of and odious and needs to be stopped forthwith. For such frivolous comparison and bringing such untenable case before this Tribunal and wasting the scarce time of this Tribunal, the applicant needs to pay a token cost.
28. Considering all these, we pass the following orders:
We find no merit in the case of the applicant. Hence, the Original Application is dismissed. All associated Miscellaneous Applications are disposed of accordingly. As to the cost, the applicant shall pay a nominal cost of Rs.500/- to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority which shall be paid in four weeks' time from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE B.K.SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SV/