Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Virendra Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India Through on 8 April, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.2438/1998 Friday, this the 8th day of April 2011 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) Virendra Kumar Sharma WP 98, Shakarpur New Delhi-58 ..Applicant (Shri G D Gupta, Senior Advocate and Shri S K Gupta, Advocate along with him) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence South Block, New Delhi-1 2. Directorate General of EME MGOs Branch Army Head Quarters DHQ Post Office, New Delhi-11 3. Commandant 510, Army Base Workshop Meerut Cantt. ..Respondents (Shri R N Singh, Advocate) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri M.L. Chauhan:
This case has been remitted by the Honble High Court of Delhi where the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
8.1 The Honble Tribunal be pleased to quash the select panel in respect of General Category candidates.
8.2 Order respondents to hold a fresh selection of General Category Candidates strictly in accordance with Rules and keeping instructions in view of favour of Apprenticeship Trainees.
8.3 Direct the respondents to not make unequals as equals in Recruitment Rules for Engr. Eqpt Mech.
8.4 Any other direction to the respondents considered appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case which adequately protects the interest of applicant.
2. The case set up by the applicant in the OA was that he had obtained ITI certificate in the trade of Tractor Mechanic from the State Industrial Training Institute, Meerut. He also underwent practical training for two years and thus in terms of Ministry of Finance letter dated 14.5.1998 he was entitled to give preference over direct recruits. One of the conditions stipulated in the said letter was that trainees were not required to appear in any examination. This Tribunal allowed this OA earlier vide its judgment dated 25.1.2001 with an observation that the applicant was not required to undergo trade test and direction was given to the respondents to adjust the applicant against third post of EEM in the light of direction of the Honble Apex Court in the case of UP State Road Transport Corporation and another v. UP Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sang and another, AIR 1995 SCC 1115. The judgment of this Tribunal was challenged before the Honble High Court in WP (C) No.7519/2002, which was decided on 7.11.2007, as it was conceded before the High Court that condition of passing of trade test by the apprentice trainees stands already settled by the Apex Court against the respondents before the High Court and present applicant. Even otherwise also, the said clause was deleted subsequently vide letter dated 17.8.1998 of Ministry of Defence. Since the OA was disposed of earlier solely on the ground that apprentice trainees are not required to pass trade test, this case has been remitted by the Honble High Court to decide the other contentions raised by the applicant. Thus, we have proceeded to decide other contentions raised by the learned counsel for applicant.
3. It is not in dispute that the applicant appeared in the trade test against general category. It is also not disputed that in fact recruitment process was initiated for 7 posts, out of which 3 were meant for general category, 1 was reserved for ex-serviceman and remaining 3 were meant for SC/ST categories. Since the applicant was not selected and was not given any offer of appointment and when he came to know that the respondents have issued letter for police verification rolls for three open market candidates, who had no technical qualification, he approached the Tribunal by filing the aforesaid OA thereby praying for the aforementioned reliefs.
4. Notice of this application was given to the respondents. The respondents have filed their reply thereby opposing the submissions made by the applicant in the OA.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant while drawing our attention to the relevant provisions of the recruitment rules for the post of EE (Mechanical), argued that those who possess technical qualification cannot be treated equal with those who do not have technical qualification. At this stage, it will be useful to quote relevant provisions of the recruitment rules for the post of EE (Mechanical), which prescribe essential qualification and thus read:
A certificate from a recognised industrial Training Institute or equivalent in the appropriate Or Intermediate/10+2 Educational system or its equivalent with Mathematics and physics.
Or Armed Forces personnel/Ex-servicemen in the appropriate trade and Grade E at minimum
7. Based on the aforesaid provisions, learned counsel for the applicant argued that at the first instance only those candidates should have been considered for selection/trade test, who possess the industrial training institute or equivalent in the appropriate trade and it is only when the candidates in the first category are not available that the recruitment should resort to category No.2 or category No.3.
8. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, though attractive, deserve out right rejection. As can be seen from the portion, as quoted above, the essential qualification has been prescribed for the purpose of eligibility and trade test in terms of the recruitment rules. From the reading of the provisions, as quoted above, it is clear that the person, who fulfills any of the essential qualifications mentioned in the recruitment rules, is eligible to appear in the trade test. Thus, according to us, the trade test could not have been confined only to category I, i.e., apprentice, who has obtained training. In case it would have been the intention of the legislature, they would have inserted the words failing which instead of or. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant deserves out right rejection.
9. The second contention as raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that nothing was mentioned as to whether the selection was competitive or result has to be declared category-wise. This contention has been raised by the applicant in the MA.
10. The respondents have categorically stated in reply to averment made in the MA that, the examination was competitive. Even otherwise also, the respondents have drawn our attention to the instructions dated 20.1.1988 (Annexure R-3). Perusal of the same reveals that the earlier rules have been superseded by the Corps of Electrical & Mechanical Engineers (Industrial) Recruitment Rules effective from 25.9.1982. In paragraph 5, it was, inter alia, provided that in case where direct recruitment is or are to be made against general quota, the proper procedure for recruitment as per order will be followed to hold trade test, etc. Performance in the trade test will be the main criteria for selection of such candidates. Where performance is equal preference will be given in the following order:
Ex-Servicemen with requisite experience in trade.
ITI candidate with requisite experience given in desirable column.
ITI candidate, and 12th Class Pass/Intermediate or its equivalent with Mathematics and Physics candidate. Thus, as can be seen from the procedure prescribed for the selection to the aforesaid post, as evolved by the respondents vide letter dated 20.1.1988, the sole criteria for selection was the performance in the trade test and where the performance is equal only then preference has to be given to the ITI candidate as compared to 12th class/intermediate or equivalent with mathematics and physics candidate.
11. The respondents have placed on record the result of the trade test and marks obtained by the respective candidates along with the reply as Annexure R-2 (page 61 of the paper book). Perusal of this document reveals that the applicant has, in all, obtained 127 marks out of 300 marks and against remarks column, fail has been mentioned. From the perusal of this document, it is evident that only those candidates have been shown as successful, who have obtained 150 marks or more than 150 marks. This document further reveals that persons, who have been selected in general category, have obtained 224, 183 and 190 marks, whereas persons, who have been kept in reserved, have obtained 150 or more than 150 marks. Further, from the perusal of the said document, it reveals that against general vacancies, 3 persons have been selected whereas 4 persons, who have obtained 150 marks, have been shown as reserved and remaining candidates were shown as failed. Thus, from the reading of this document as well as criteria laid down by the respondents for selecting the candidates, as mentioned in the earlier part of the order, where selection has to be made solely on the basis of performance in the trade test, it cannot be said that the applicant, who has failed in the trade test, should have been given preference in the matter of selection. Once the applicant has failed in the trade test, the question whether he was to get preference or not does not arise.
12. Further, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that the result of the applicant has to be assessed separately qua the category to which he belongs, can also not be accepted in the light of the provisions contained in the recruitment rules and procedure prescribed. Accordingly, we see no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
13. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents while placing reliance upon the provisions, as quoted above, has also placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Arvind Gautam v. State of U. & others, (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1397 wherein the decision of the Apex Court in the case of UP State Road Transport Corporation (supra) was taken note of and it was held that the apprentice trainees are also required to participate in competitive examination or test for recruitment and in case he gets equal number to non-apprentice candidate, then he will be given performance.
14. Thus, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, referred to above, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that the apprentice trainees constitute a separate class and they have to assess separately is without any basis.
15. Thus, viewing the matter from any angle, the applicant has not made out any case for our interference. The OA is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
( A.K. Mishra ) ( M.L. Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/