Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rama Nand Mehta vs Union Public Service Commission on 17 March, 2025
1
Item No. 36 (C-4) O.A No. 3515/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 3515/2015 with MA Nos. 2211/2016
and 2212/2016
Reserved on : 13.02.2025
Pronounced on : 17.03.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Dr. Rama Nand Mehta
R/o. 177-A, D-2 Area,
N.D.A. Khadakwasla,
Pune-411023, Maharashtra ....Applicant
(Applicant in person)
Versus
1. Union Public Service Commission
Through its Chairman,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Ministry of Defence,
Through its Secretary,
South Block,
New Delhi - 110 011
3. National Defence Academy
(Recognized by Jawaharlal University)
Through Commandant Khadakwasla,
Pune-411 023, Maharashtra. ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Ravinder Agarwal with Mr. Manish Kumar Singh
for R-1, Mr. Ashok Kumar and Ms. Gurmeet Kaur for R-4 & 5,)
2 OA No. 3515/2015
Item 36 (C-4)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"8 a) Applicant may kindly be granted regular appointment w.e.f. 07.10.1996 with all consequential benefits on the post of Assistant Professor in Mathematics, N.D.A., Khadakwasla, Pune, Maharashtra; and aa) The letter dated 29.06.2016 issued by the Respondent No.3 terminating services of Applicant w.e.f. 29.06.2016 be quashed and set aside and the Applicant be declared in continuous service.
b) applicant may kindly be exempted from appearing in the interview alongwith other fresh candidates and may directly be considered for regular appointment to the post of Assistant Professor; and
c) the Respondent No.1's letter dated 19.06.2015 may kindly be set aside and quashed; and
d) the Applicant may kindly be granted relaxation of age for participating in the selection process; and/or
e) any other relief to which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted;"
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the applicant is that he passed M.Sc. in Mathematics with 77% marks in October, 1991 from L. N. Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga, Bihar in October, 1991. In March/April, 1996, an advertisement was published in the Employment News dated March/April, 1996 for filling 3 OA No. 3515/2015 Item 36 (C-4) up of 7 posts of Ad hoc Lecturers re-designated Assistant Professors with effect from 01.01.2006 in the Mathematics Department of 'National Defence Academy' (Recognised by the Jawahar Lal Nehru University', New Delhi. Following educational qualifications were prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer :-
i) M.Sc., Mathematics
ii) At least 55% marks in M.Sc
iii) Preference was to be given to the candidates who cleared
NET/SLET.
3. The applicant who appeared in person submitted that he had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) in NDA, Khadakwasla, Pune pursuant to the said advertisement issued in the Employment News. On being declared successful in the same, he was offered the post on ad hoc basis which he then joined on 07.10.1996. In September 2001 he along with some other similarly situated ad hoc teachers of NDA, Khadakwasla had approached the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in OA No 586/2001 seeking various benefits such as annual increment, medical reimbursement, E.L, L.T.C., C.L, Maternity/Paternity Leave and Children Education Allowance. The same came to be disposed of on 31.01.2002 and the following directions were issued :
4 OA No. 3515/2015
Item 36 (C-4)
5. The Learned Counsel for the respondents also admits that relief was granted to the applicants similarly placed at National Defence Academy under Respondent No. 2 in earlier O.A. Nos. 57/95, 490/98, 1061/99 and 478/99 except for regularization and absorption. Further, in the judgment in OAs 57/95 and 490/98 the Tribunal had also passed the orders directing the Respondents not to terminate the services of the applicants and the applicants should be continued in service in future on adhoc basis without any break as per rules by giving them natural justice. Since the aforesaid judgment is relevant, the orders passed in the judgment are reproduced as under:-
(i) While rejecting the claim of both the applications for regularization/absorption, the respondents are directed not to terminate the services of the applicants till availability of regular candidates.
(ii) The applicants should be continued in service in future on adhoc basis without any break during summer vacation or any other vacation and to give them in future regular salary as per the scale in which they are working after fixing their pay by giving notional increments from the date of their respective applications (OA No.57/95 of Miss Rohini R. Joshi filed on 06.12.1994 and O.A. No.490/99 filed on 05.05.1998).
(iii) The applicants are entitled to other service benefits as detailed in para (8) & (9), except the entitlement of the applicants to credit of leave from the date of their respective applications, all over benefits mentioned therein shall be prospectively framed from today and onwards."
4. He contended that pursuant to the direction issued by this Tribunal, he started receiving the wages at par with the regular employees, including his increments and LTC. However, his request for regularization was rejected. In the meantime, he also completed his PHD and on 22.05.2013 had requested the respondents to consider his case for regularization since he was to complete his PHD shortly. He submitted that the respondents did not reply to the said representation till date.
5 OA No. 3515/2015Item 36 (C-4)
5. In the year 2014, UPSC issued a fresh notification/advertisement calling for application for the regular recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor. In the said advertisement, he was in possession of a PHD degree and was therefore exempted from NET or SET qualifications. He had also applied against the said advertisement. However, he could not be shortlisted. Moreover, he was terminated vide order dated 29.06.2016 and hence the present OA.
6. When the notice in the OA was issued, at the initial stage, the Tribunal was pleased to direct that any appointment against the advertisement issued in 2014 by the UPSC shall remain subject to the outcome of the OA. The applicant then also on merits submitted that although the OA filed by him along with the other candidates before the Mumbai Bench had rejected the claim of regularization, however, the same had been allowed following the directions of this Tribunal in OA No 57/1995. Only a part of the directions of OA No 57/1995 have been recorded by the Tribunal in his OA. He drew our attention to the detailed order in the said OA and submitted that the Tribunal therein had granted relief to the applicant in OA No 57/1995 and had held that his services should not be terminated as long as there is enough teaching workload and as long as no regular candidates are appointed. He submitted that the applicant had been terminated in Year 2016 June perhaps for the reason that regularly selected candidates had joined by that time. He further submitted that 6 OA No. 3515/2015 Item 36 (C-4) in spite of the regular recruitment having not been taken place, the respondents had issued two advertisements dated 08.06.2016 and 06.08.2016 calling for applications for appointment on ad-hoc basis which showed that teaching work was still available with the respondents.
7. He further submitted that he had approached the respondents by filing various RTIs and had received information that one post of Assistant Professor (Mathematics) and Professor was still vacant as late as 24.05.2024. He therefore submitted that in view of the work load still being there and vacancies being available and in view of the detailed directions issued in OA No 57/1995, he deserved a chance to be considered for regularization. He reiterated that the Private respondents i.e., R-4 had been impleaded later on by him. This fact had also been confirmed by UPSC on their website while declaring the result. He, therefore, submitted that the instant OA deserved to be allowed not only for the purpose of grant of regularization but to ensure full compliance of the decision of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal which in itself was based on the decision of the Tribunal in OA No 57/1995.
8. He relied on the following catena of judgments listed below:-
"(i) Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1;
(ii) S. Srinivasan vs. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 23479 of 2006, Date of Judgment: 18.12.2007, High Court of Judicature at Madras;7 OA No. 3515/2015
Item 36 (C-4)
(iii) Mrs. Reeta David & Ors. vs. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh & Ors., C.W.P. No.18755 of 2003, Date of Judgment: 29.07.2005;
(iv) Sachin Ambadas Dawale & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Writ Petition No.2046 of 2010, Date of Judgment: 19.10.2013;
(v) State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Kamal Prasad & Ors., reported in 2014 (5) SCALE 558;
(vi) Arjun Singh & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2014 (5) SCALE 115;
(vii) Gauri Shankar Pd. Rai vs. Sajal Chakroborty, Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand & Ors., Contempt Petition (C) No.421 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No.4831 of 2014, Date of Judgment: 09.04.2015, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;
(viii) Maninder Singh & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., CWP No.11144-CAT of 2002, Date of Judgment: 02.02.2009 and
(ix) Rajnish Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. etc. Civil Appeal Nos. 9413-9414 of 2019.Date of Judgment: 13 Dec 2019, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India."
9. Per contra, learned counsel for Ministry of Defence (MoD) drew our attention to the prayer as claimed in the amended OA. He submitted that multiple reliefs had been sought by the applicant which is not permissible under Rule 10 of C.A.T. Procedure Rules. He referred to order sheet dated 29.08.2023 in this regard wherein the applicant had dropped his relief vis-à-vis the selection process of the year 2014 and had restricted the present OA for setting aside the applicant's termination order and for regularization w.e.f. 07.10.1996 only.
10. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that since the applicant had restricted his OA only to his termination and prayer for 8 OA No. 3515/2015 Item 36 (C-4) regularization, the cause of action did not arise in the Principal Bench but should lie before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal. The Principal Bench lacked territorial jurisdiction to decide this matter.
11. The counsel further added that the applicant's claim for regularization was also now res judicata since the same had already been decided by the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 586/2001 and the said relief claimed by the applicant therein already stood rejected. He also relied on an OM No. 49014/7/2020-Estt.(c) dated 07.10.2020.
12. On merits, the counsel submitted that the applicant had placed reliance on Uma Devi and Ors. vs. Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1. According to him, reliance on Uma Devi (supra) was incorrect since his case did not fit in the conditions as laid down therein as the applicant had entered into the service in the year 1996 and was working uninterruptedly thereafter. He was continuing uninterrupted pursuant to the interim directions granted to him by the Mumbai Bench. However, for the purpose of regularization, the cut off date in the Uma Devi (supra) was 2006. On the said date, the applicant had not completed 10 years of service. As such, he was not eligible for the grant of consideration for regularization as per Uma Devi. On the question of availability of a sanctioned post, learned counsel averred that out of the 11 9 OA No. 3515/2015 Item 36 (C-4) sanctioned posts of Assistant Professor (Mathematics) in NDA, Khadakwasla all of them had been filled up by the regularly recruited professors. It was submitted that as on date, there was no vacancy of the Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics.
13. Learned counsel for UPSC reiterated the arguments made by learned counsel for Union of India. As per him, the OA deserved dismissal as the same had been barred by res judicata. The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal had already decided the matter which had become final inter se the parties. Even otherwise, the applicant did not fulfill the required qualifications since the applicant was not NET qualified.
14. On our query as to whether the said qualification had been exempted by the UPSC, learned counsel submitted that once in 2014, one time relaxation was available when the advertisement was issued; however, as on date, the essential requirement is that of PHD and NET qualified.
15. He further added that even otherwise the applicant's qualifications of PHD did not inspire confidence since the degree of PHD conferred upon the applicant had not been issued as per Regulation 20 of the UGC. He therefore submitted that the applicant although had applied pursuant to the advertisement of 2014, he was not shortlisted since he did not meet the essential qualifications. 10 OA No. 3515/2015 Item 36 (C-4)
16. He also once again drew our attention to the order sheet dated 29.08.2023 wherein the applicant had already given up his claim against the selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2014. Therefore, the counsel submitted that in view of the same, nothing much survived in the OA and the same deserved dismissal.
He relied on paras 6 and 19 of the rejoinder which has reference to Writ Petition No. 23479/2006 titled S. Srinivasan vs. (UOI & Ors.) along with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Uma Devi (supra).
17. Heard the rival submissions ; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the points of fact and points of law in the instant OA and observed that the applicant is now contesting for only one relief i.e., setting aside his termination order and for regularisation w.e.f 07.10.1996. This claim for regularisation is now no longer 'res integra' but 'res judicata' as the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 586/2001 has already adjudicated the matter and rejected the claim. This case is not covered by the Judgment of Uma Devi and Others vs. Secretary State of Karnataka and others (supra) as the facts in the instant OA are distinguishable from those cited in Uma Devi judgment. In the instant OA the applicant who had joined service in 1996 was 11 OA No. 3515/2015 Item 36 (C-4) working uninterruptedly pursuant to the interim directions granted to him by the Mumbai Bench of CAT. Further, for the purpose of regularisation, as per Uma Devi's case (supra), the cut off date was 2006 and the applicant had not completed 10 years of service as per the cut off date. Also the applicant does not fulfil the eligibility criteria as he is not NET qualified. Moreover, as on date, there is no vacancy of the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics in NDA, Khadakwasla, Pune. There are 11 sanctioned posts of Assistant Professor (Mathematics) in NDA and all of them have been filled up by regularly recruited Professors.
18. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the balance of convenience in the instant OA clearly lies with the respondents. The instant OA lacks merit ; deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending M.A(s) if any also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/