Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri N.K.Joshi vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 January, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No. 33/2011 New Delhi this the 11th day of January, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V.K.Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) Shri N.K.Joshi, S/o Shri P.L.Joshi, R/o C-74, Four Stories Building, P.O.-Zawar Mines, Udaipur Rajasthan-313009 Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Manu Mridul) VERSUS Union Public Service Commission Through Secretary, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. ...Respondent O R D E R Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A):
The Applicant is aggrieved that his application for the post of Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines has been rejected by the Respondent, Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) on the ground that it was received after the due date of receipt of the applications for the aforesaid post, as advertised in the Employment News of the period 13-19.02.2010. The Respondent, UPSC, had informed the Applicant by the impugned order dated 2.12.2010 that his application was received in the office of the UPSC on 08.03.2010, whereas the last date for receiving the applications was 04.03.2010. He is seeking the following relief:
i. Direct the Respondent to create a supernumerary post of Regional Controller of Mines for the Applicant.
ii. Declare that the applicant is entitled to be called for interview and direct the Respondent to issue a call letter for interview for the post of Regional Controller of Mines in Indian Bureau of Mines.
iii. Declare that the procedure for issuing the interview letter is bad in law being in contravention of the procedure for receipt and shortlisting of candidates;
iv. pass any other order or orders as may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice.
2. The Applicant has a degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Mining), which he acquired in the year 1985. He worked as Assistant Professor (Mining) from 06.12.1985 to 09.04.1988 in an engineering college. After that the Applicant joined the Hindustan Zinc Ltd, Zawar Mines as an Assistant Engineer (Mining) and was promoted as Assistant General Manager in 2007. The Respondent invited applications for filling up the post of Regional Controller of Mines in the Indian Bureau of Mines by advertisement number 03/2010, published in the Employment News of 1319.02.2010. The last date for the receipt of the applications was mentioned in the advertisement as 04.03.2010. The Applicant, being eligible, applied for the post and sent his application on 02.03.2010 by speed post. The Applicant received an acknowledgement about the receipt of the application form from the Respondent. His application had been registered at serial number 211 by the Respondent. When the Applicant had not received any letter calling him for interview and he came to know that others had been called for interview, he made a representation to the Respondent on 01.11.2010. However, when there was no response to his representation, he approached this Tribunal through OA number 3750/2010, which was decided on 10.11.2010, with the following directions:
2. It is noticed from the advertisement published in the Employment News 13-19 February 2010 of the UPSC for the said post that it had specifically been stipulated therein that:
The completed application from must reach the Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110 069 on or before 04.03.2010. It is not known whether the application of the applicant had been received within the above prescribed date but the learned counsel for the applicant submits that as the same had been posted by Speed Post at 10.23 on 02.03.2010 (Annexure A-2), the same would have been received by the UPSC in time. This is something which would have to be verified by the UPSC. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to know the reasons for not being called for interview.
3. In this view of the matter, we dispose of this OA, by directing the respondents to look into the representation dated 01.11.2010 of the applicant and in case it is found that he satisfies all the eligibility conditions as well as other conditions, such as submission of receipt of the application in time etc., to consider him for the interview for the said post. In case he does not satisfy all the conditions, the reasons as to why he has not been considered may be given to the applicant. In compliance of the above direction, the Respondent informed the Applicant that his application for the above said post was received on 08.03.2010, whereas the due date was 04.03.2010. The Applicant had also written to the concerned post office for intimating the date of delivery of the application form to the UPSC, but he was informed verbally that post offices do not maintain the record beyond six months.
3. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Applicant before us is that as per the knowledge of the Applicant, he was not the only person whose application was received on 08.03.2010, but there were five other persons whose applications were received on the same date, yet they were all called for the interview. In this context our attention was drawn to paragraph 4.k, which reads thus:
4k.The applicant states that it is not only the applicant who application form was rejected by the UPSC as having been received late, i.e. on 8th March, 2010, there were five other persons also whose application forms were shown to have received on 8th March, 2010, whose names are being given therein below.
a. Shri G C Sethi b. Shri Sharad S Sapkal c. Shri Kamlesh Kumar Tardia d. Shri B Ram Mohan e. Shri Girish Kumar Jaangid The applicant states that the application of the above five candidates were shown to have been received on 8.3.2010. However, on representations being made in this regard all 5 were called for interview by the Respondent later on. It is significant to state that Shri G C Sethi, whose application was also shown to have been received on 8.3.2010, was given the registration number as 219, which show that the same was received after the application form of the applicant was received. Shri Sharad S. Sapkal was called for interview on 11.11.2010, Shri Kamlesh Kumar Tardia and Shri B. Ram Mohan were called for interview on 9.11.2010 and Shri Girish Kumar Jaangid was called for interview on 11.11.2010. He would further contend that all this happened because the concerned dealing clerk of the Respondent, UPSC had been sent on deputation for Commonwealth Games or on leave during the first week of March 2010, as a result of which all forms accumulated during the week and all those were opened and stamped on eighth of March 2010 on resumption of duty by the said Clerk. This averment has been made in paragraph m of the OA. It was further contended that it would be reasonable to infer from the above that irrespective of the date and time of receipt of the application forms, all the forms were opened and stamped on 08.03.2010. Some of those whose forms were received late were called for interview and others were not called, depending on the whims and fancies of the Respondent. The learned counsel also contended that so far as the procedure for listing of the application forms received by the Respondent was concerned, all applications on receipt were placed in a box after noting down the date of receipt on the cover of the envelope. The registration number is allotted in accordance with the order in which they are taken out of the box, in which all the forms are placed. He would contend that in the instant case the clerk took out the application forms accumulated during his absence on leave and then he gave the registration numbers in the order in which the envelope was taken out of the box in which it was deposited. He would vehemently contend that the Respondent was maintaining that the application was received on 08.03.2010 only because it was taken out of the box on that date. He would contend that he has been subjected to hostile discrimination in as much as others, whose applications were also received on 08.03.2010, have been called for interview, whereas he has been left out. He would contend that one G C Sethi, whose application was also received on 08.03.2010 and who had been given serial numbers 219 was called for interview, whereas the application of the Applicant had been registered at serial number 211. He would further contend that one Shri Sakpal, who had posted his application form well in time and who had not been called for interview also made a representation, as a result of which the Respondent decided to call him for interview. He would argue that in case of the Applicant, his representation was not even responded to.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicant could not state with surety that the Applicant's application was received by the Respondent before the due date. He admitted that it could have reached the Respondent late on 08.03.2010. He has not been able to disclose as to how he came to know that the applications of five other persons, whose names have been mentioned above, were also received on 08.03.2010. The only answer the learned counsel for the Applicant could give in this regard was that she found out about it from various sources. The whole averment about the clerk being on deputation or on leave and hence opening of all the application forms on the same date, that is, 08.03.2010, seems to be merely a figment of the imagination. The Tribunal had directed the Respondent in OA number 3750/2010 to satisfy itself that all the eligibility conditions, including the receipt of the application form in time had been met. In response to this the Respondent had informed the Applicant that his application had not been received in time. No foundation whatsoever has been laid for the averment that application of five other persons was also received on 08.03.2010. The story about the clerk being on leave or on deputation also has no basis.
5. The Respondent, UPSC has to conduct very large number of examinations, in which millions of candidates appear. It is, therefore, necessary for them to insist that the rules regarding submission of application forms, including their submission in time, should be followed strictly. If it is not insisted upon, it can lead to sheer administrative chaos. The Tribunal would normally not interfere in such a matter, unless it was demonstrated unambiguously and on the basis of solid facts that the Respondent had indulged in serious irregularities. The Applicant has merely given a fanciful account of events without any basis of facts.
6. On the basis of the above, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter. The OA is dismissed in limine.
( L.K.Joshi ) ( V.K.Bali ) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /dkm/