Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Sharafudeen P.S. S/O Shaik Koya Pp vs The Union Of India on 20 January, 2016
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
o;? CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 173 of 2013
Wednesday this the 20th day of January, 2016
CORAM
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mrs. P. Gopinath, Administrative Member
Sharafudeen P.S. S/o Shaik Koya PP
aged 31 years presently working as Casual Labourer
in Village Dweep Panchayat, Union Territory of
Lakshadweep, Amini Island 682552
and residing at Poovalapu House, Union Territory of
Lakshadweep, Amini Island-682552.
. . . . Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. N. Unnikrishnan)
Versus
1. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary
to Government of India, Ministry of Personnel and
Public Grievances, Department of Personnel and Training,
New Delhi.1.
2. The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep,
Kavaratti Island-68255.
3. The Executive Engineer (Electrical)
Department of Electricity, Union Territory of Lakshadweep,
Island-682555.
4 The Director (Services), Union Territory of Lakshadweep,
Administration, Kavaratti Island-682555.
5 Departmental Promotion Committee represented by the
Chairman, Secretariat, Union Territory of Lakshadweep,
Kavaratti-682555.
6 Jabir AP, Aynepura House, Kavaratti Island.
(impleaded vide order dated 10.12.2013 in MA 1332/2013)
. . . . . Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. N. Anilkumar, Sr.PCGSC (for R.1)
Advocate Mr. S.Radhakrishnan (for R.2-5)
Advocate Mr. K.B.Ganesh (for R.6)
This application having been finally heard on 15.12.2015, the
Tribunal on 20 .01.2016 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member This O.A has been filed seeking declaration that the respondents are bound to make selection and appointment against the vacancies by Annexures A5 and A7 separately and to consider the applicant for the post notified by Annexure A5 and Annexure A6 check list.
2. The gist of the applicant's case is as under:-
Applications were invited by the 3rd respondent for the post of Engine Driver/Attendant/Lineman/Helper for Lineman/Helper for Meter Testing/Mechanical Fitter/Oilman/Mazdoor and similar grades in the Pay Band 2 of Rs. 5200-20200 Plus Grade Pay Rs. 1200/- in the Electricity Department. Including two anticipated vacancies the number of posts was 14. The age limit as on 31.12.2012 was 18-25 years with 5 years relaxation for SC candidates., vide Annexure A5 dated 19.11.2011. The applicant applied for the same. A check list dated 4.6.2012 was published as per Annexure A6. The applicant appeared at Sl. No.33 in the Annexure A6 list. Another notification dated 25.10.2012 (Annexure A7) was issued by the third respondent for the aforesaid post where the number of posts is shown as 31 which includes 10 anticipated vacancies. The age limit and educational qualifications and desirable qualifications are shown in Annexure A5. Besides it is also noticed that persons with experience of less than B> year will also be considered. The criteria for giving the marks was also stated in Annexure A7 notification dated 25.10.2012. 31 posts shown in Annexure A7 is inclusive of 14 posts notified in Annexures A5 and A6. The respondents are bound to consider and make selection for each year vacancy separately. If the claim of applicant is not considered separately, he would be over aged in which event his chance for getting a public employment will be marred for ever. Annexure A8 representation was given by him on 21.12.2012. For posts other than 14 posts notified under Annexure A5, a separate selection is to be done. If a separate selection is made as notified under Annexure A5 the applicant will get appointment against the the 9th vacancy. The action of the respondents in clubbing the vacancies notified for the year 2011 and 2012 and making selection amounts to illegal exercise of power. If the respondents are allowed to make selection as per Annexure A7 the applicant will not get chance as he would be over aged as per the employment notice.
3. The Ist respondent Union of India is not a necessary party in this case.
4. Respondents 2 to 5 have filed their reply statement contending as follows:
On 14.10.2010 the Department of Electricity, Lakshadweep Administration invited applications to fill up 23 vacancies of Engine Driver/Attendant/Lineman/Helper for Lineman/Helper for Meter Testing/Mechanical Fitter/Oilman/Mazdoor and similar grades in the Pay Band 2 of Rs. 5200-20200 Plus Grade Pay Rs. 1200/- prescribing the same qualification as per A5 notification and Annexure A9 Recruitment Rules. The department conducted selection process. During the selection process it was found that sufficient number of candidates having the prescribed qualification were not available. Hence on the request of the Selection Committee, the administrator approved relaxation of qualification and experience as one time measure and approved the essential qualification and experience. Challenging the selection thus made to the posts of Oilman etc. pursuant to Annexure A5 notification, four O.As were filed OA 304, 314, 363 and 384 of 2011. On 23.12.2011 this Tribunal set aside the selection since the relaxation was granted without public notice directing to make fresh selection tot he posts notified in Annexure A1 and make appointment in accordance with law as early as possible. (vide Annexure R2(a) order). In the light of the direction in R.2(a) order a selection committee meeting was again convened on 10.5.2012 and they decided to implement the order and directed to re notify the 23 vacancies notified earlier on 14.10.2010 by canceling the earlier notification indicating that relaxation/experience will be granted, if warranted by situation and to the extent the discretion of the competent authority, in case candidates possessing required experience as specified in the recruitment rule are not available.
Annexure R.2(b) of the copy fo the minutes of that selection committee. Annexure R2(c) is the order of the Administrator who approved relation of qualification. Accordingly the department issued notification granting opportunity to the candidates having some experience in the field to submit fresh application and to the existing candidates to submit the experience certificate. Thus a fresh selection was conducted and select list prepared which was published by notice dated 19.3.2013. Appointments were thus made in accordance with the select list. Even before the order passed by this Tribunal (Annexure R2(a) notification was issued on 14.11.2011. As per Annexure A5 dated 19.11.2011 the respondents invited Application for filling up of 14 vacancies of Engine Driver etc. Applications were received including that of the applicant. A check list was prepared by Annexure A6. The name of applicant is shown as Sl.No.33. It was shown that the applicant is not having any experience and the essential qualification. OA 61/12 was field by one Abdul Qureshi before this Tribunal stating that Annexure A5 notification was issued ignoring the order passed by this Tribunal. It was stated by the respondents in that OA in case the respondents wish to give any relaxation they may abide by Annexure. R2(a) order so that there may not be any grievance for those who have not applied within the relaxed condition vide Annexure. R2(c). The selection committee scrutinized the applications. It was found that no candidate including the applicant was having essential qualification or experience as per Annexure A5 notification. Therefore, in the light of Annexure R.2(a) and Annexure R2(c) orders passed by the Tribunal, the selection committee did nto recommend any candidate including the applicant for selection pursuant to Annexure.A5 notification vide Annexure R.2(d). The third respondent thereafter submitted request to the 2nd respondent for relaxation of Column 8 of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Oilman etc. 14 vacancies notified as per Annexure A5 could not be filled as none could be selected. The number of vacancies increased from 14 to 31 due to retirement/death etc. The proposal before the 2nd respondent to relax the conditions in the Recruitment Rules was approved by the Administrator on 25.10.2012. Thus as per Anenxure A7 including 14 vacancies mentioned in Annexure A5, 31 vacancies were notified for selection.
5. A corrigendum was issued clarifying that those candidates who had applied in tune with Annexure A5 notification have to apply afresh for being considered to 31 vacancies notified and the applications submitted in tune with 19.11.2011 will not be considered as a valid application under the notification dated 25.10.2012 because of the changed qualification. It was made because of the relaxation of the qualification for 31 vacancies That was done in view of the direction issued by this Tribunal vide Annexure R.2(a). As per the Recruitment Rules and the notification it was made specific that preference will be given to those who have satisfactorily passing ITI course. Experience for a minimum period of 3 years as Electrician/Wireman was the essential qualification. The desirable qualification cannot be treated as substitute for essential qualification. From Annexure A6 check list it can be seen that the applicant who has shown at Sl.No.33 was not having any experience to satisfy the essential qualification. Therefore, even if he had experience/training that cannot be treated as an essential qualification,. The applicant was worked in the Ele3ctrical Sub Division, Amini on 20.8.2010 to 19.12.2011 as Casual labour which is treated as desirable and not as essential qualification as per the Recruitment Rules. Annexure A7 notification dated 25.10.2010 for 31 vacancies was issued in the wake of cancellation of Annexure A5 notification for 14 vacancies. The applicant was not qualified either as per Annexures A5 or A7 notifications. As per R.2(d) the applicants candidature was rejected since he was not qualified in the selection as per Annexure A5 notification or Annexure A9 Recruitment Rules. The applicant is having the required experience only as per A7 notification dated 25.10.2010. The applicant was disqualified due to over age when A7 notification was issued. The relaxation grated as per Annexure A7 notification 25.10.2012 cannot be extended to the vacancies notified as per Annexure A5 dated 19.11.2011 and that it would be violating the direction given by this Tribunal as per Annexures R2 (a) and R2(c). Thus the respondents contend that this OA is liable to be dismissed.
6. A rejoinder has been filed refuting the averments contained in the reply statement.
7. Thereafter an additional reply statement was filed by the official Respondents countering the additional grounds raised by the applicant in the rejoinder. It is contended that as far as Annexure A5 notification dated 19.11.2011 is concerned, the selection process was already over and it was concluded. The committee did not recommend any candidate but suggested, as a one time measure, to relax the qualification enabling the department to issue fresh notification for those vacancies. But at the same time the number of vacancies was increased from 14 to 31 due to retirement/death/voluntary retirement and anticipated vacancies on promotion. The Administrator is the competent authority to relax any provision except Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules. After the approval from the Administrator the respondents notified 31 vacancies including 14 vacancies covered by the earlier notification. The respondents acted in a just and fair manner as in the case of selection of candidates and also in public interest. The Selection Committee met on 14.12.2008 scrutinized the applications and concluded that no candidate including the applicants satisfy the essential qualification of experience as per Annexure A5 notification and Annexure A9 Recruitment Rules. The respondents are bound by Annexure R.2 order passed by this Tribunal. Annexures A5 and A7 specifically stipulate experience of minimum period of three years as Electrician/Wireman and 4 years for Mechanic Diesel under Central Government/State Government/Government undertaking. That stipulation is there in Annexure A9 Recruitment Rules as well. The applicants are not entitled to be selected against 14 vacancies notified as per Annexure A5 notification dated 19.11.2011 as evident from Annexure R.1(d).
8. The party respondent (6th respondent) filed reply statement refuting the allegations made by the applicants questioning the selection of the 6th respondent. It is further stated that in Annexure R.6(a) corrigendum it was clarified that Annexure A5 notification applicants who had submitted application pursuant to Annexure A5 have to apply afresh in accordance with Annexure A7 notification. Pursuant to Annexure R.6(a) the applicant was duty bound to apply in accordance with A7 notification. The reasons for canceling Annexure A5 notification has been stated in Annexure R6(a) which has not been challenged by the applicant. Pursuant to Annexure A7 notification the selection was completed and the list was published on 28.9.2013 Even though 31 posts notified pursuant to Annexure A7 the Administration has drawn up list of 30 candidates one post was kept vacant due to the pendency of this OA. Respondent No.6 is ranked first in the waiting list published along with the select list. Respondent No.6 is entitled to be selected and appointed to the 31st post notified as per Annexure 7. Annexure R.6(b) the select list is also not challenged by the applicant. The experience of the applicant as a causal labourer cannot be termed as valid experience in terms of Annexure A5 notification. Applicant cannot said to be aggrieved by cancellation of Annexure A5 notification as he was not qualified as per the terms of Annexure A5 notification.
9. An additional rejoinder has been filed by the applicant reiterating the contention already taken by him. It is further contended that the respondents are bound to conduct separate selection for each recruitment year to fill up the vacancies accordingly. By filling up 14 posts notified earlier along with the subsequent vacancies en bloc weeding out the qualified hands like the applicant at the time of the first notification (A5) has caused injustice to the applicant as the applicant became over aged as per the 2nd notification (A7). It is denied that Annexures A5 and A7 were issued in accordance with Annexure A9 Recruitment Rules. Annexure A7 contravenes Annexure A9 Recruitment Rules. The post notified do not want experience at all. The respondents are bound to fill up 14 vacancies as per Annexure A5 notification in which the applicant is qualified in all respects. He was included in the check list for that recruitment years. It cannot be added to the vacancies of the next year and deny the candidature of the persons like applicant who were qualified for getting selection and appointment to those 14 vacancies.
10. When reply statement was filed by the 6th respondent another rejoinder was filed by the applicant where also the contentions raised by him are similar to the contentions raised earlier.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the both parties and have gone through the documents on record.
12. The points for consideration are whether the Annexure A7 notification and the Selection conducted pursuant thereto are liable to be set aside, whether the applicant is entitled to be selected and whether the plea raised by the applicant that 6 th respondent is not entitled to be selected is correct.?
13. Annexure A5 is the first employment notice dated 19.11.2011 where the total number of posts was 14 including the two anticipated posts. Besides the Educational Qualification the experience (one of the three essential conditions) was experience as Electrician/Wireman and 4 years for Mechanic Diesel under Central Government/State Government/Government undertaking. None of the candidates including the applicant satisfied the essential requirement and so none could be selected. The qualification prescribed as per Annexure A5 was in tune with Annexure A9 Recruitment Rules. Subsequently during the selection process relaxation with regard to experience was given. That was challenged before this Tribunal. Annexure R.2 (a) is the common order passed by this Tribunal on 23.12.2011. It was held by this Tribunal in para 9 of the order:
'. . . . The right course of action for the respondents was to cancel the recruitment process for want of eligible candidates for appointment as per the Recruitment Rules and to start a fresh process of selection with relaxation of qualification to the extent as deemed necessary by the competent authority. It was also open to the respondents to indicate in the notification that relaxation in experience will be granted if warranted by the situation at the discretion of the competent authority. This would have enabled all those who do not have the required experience to participate in the process of selection, if so desired. . . . .' Paragraphs 9 and 10 are wrongly repeated in the next two pages. It was ultimately held by this Tribunal:
'In the light of the above discussion, we declare that the selection and appointment as per Annexure A12 select list is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Annexure A12 select list is hereby set aside. However, those who were appointed may continue provisionally till regular recruits arrive to replace them. The respondents are directed to make fresh selection to the posts notified in Annexure A1 and make appointment in accordance with law as early as possible. The respondents can make relaxation of condition of eligibility as deemed fit by them in a legally sustainable manner.' Annexure A7 is the notification dated 25.10.2012 where the total number of posts is shown as 31 including the 10 anticipated vacancies. Admittedly 31 posts includes the 14 posts notified earlier as per Annexure A5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that Annexure A5 notification as such was not set aside but only it is shown in Annexure A12 therein the select list alone was set aside. However it is a fact that this Tribunal directed to start fresh process of selection with relaxation to qualification to the extent as deemed necessary by the competent authority.
14. The main thrust of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the respondents are not justified in issuing a common notification for all the posts including the posts which occurred subsequent to Annexure A5.
According to the applicant, the vacancy which arose in 2010 should be the subject matter of separate notification and if it is so done, and if relaxation with regard to the experience is given to the candidates applying for the post of 14 vacancies as originally shown in A5, then certainly the applicant and similarly placed persons could have applied for those 14 posts without any difficulty but by the time Annexure A7 was issued the applicant was overaged and so there has been denial of opportunity to the applicant. Thus according to the learned counsel for the applicant, there was flagrant violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This contention is strongly resisted by the learned counsel for the respondents. The applicant did not get himself qualified in the selection process, done pursuant to Annexure A5 because he did not acquire the experience. As such he did not get any indefeasible right to contend that a separate notification should have been issued for the 14 posts which were available at the time of issuance of Annexure A5. Nothing is stated in Annexure R2 order that when notification with relaxation of qualification/experience is issued, such notification should specifically state that the candidates who had participated in Annexure A5 selection process, should be allowed to participate in the selection reckoning the age as it stood fixed in Annexure A5. In other words, the applicant cannot contend that since the selection process initiated as per Annexure A5, has been set at naught the applicant who had participated in Annexure A5 should be given liberty to apply for those 14 posts reckoning their age as stood fixed in Annexure A5. Since no such reservation was made in R.2 (a) order passed by this Tribunal, it would be unreasonable to contend that the 14 posts should have been segregated and for those posts the age should be reckoned as it stood on the date of Annexure A5. According to the respondents the relaxation granted as per Annexure A7 cannot be extended to the vacancies notified as per Annexure A5 dated 19.11.2011 as according to them it would be violating the direction given as per Annexures R2(a) and R2(c).
15. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that Rule 5 of Annexure A9 Recruitment Rules empowers the Administrator to relax the conditions. Rule 5 of Annexure A9 states:
'Where the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, he may, by order, for reason to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions except Rule 4 of these Rules, with respect to any class or category o persons' Rule 4 mentioned therein is not applicable here. Therefore according to the learned counsel for the applicant, the Administrator has every right to grant relaxation with respect to the age of the applicants as well in view of the special circumstances prevelant in the Island. But Tribunal cannot compel the Administrator to grant relaxation with regard to the age. The vacancy which arose subsequent to Annexure A5 was also added when Annexure A7 notification was issued in order to have a common and uniform selection process. It was not with any ulterior motive to favour anybody or to exclude the applicant it was so done. It is not a case where once the applicant was eligible to be appointed but it had to be set aside on technical or other ground or later abandoned. But here, the applicant and other candidates could not be selected as none of them did satisfy the eligibility condition. Therefore, the applicant cannot contend that he had a legal right and that it was subsequently flouted, infringed or taken away so as to favour somebody else. It is certain that the Administration has taken a deliberate and conscious decision in the matter to grant relaxation with regard to the experience alone in view of the fact that there were no qualified or experienced persons to be selected for the post notified. That does not mean that the applicant who did not have the minimum experience so as to get himself selected for the post can contend that the subsequent notification should have been given in a split up manner (separately) so as to have selection for 14 posts fixing a particular age for those 14 posts and a separate notification for the remaining post which occurred subsequently should have been issued. It is not a case where the Administration has acted with malafides or oblique motive to give appointment to certain categories of persons or do deny the same to the persons who had acquired certain rights. The applicant could not be selected because he did not have the required experience. The fact that the Administrator had to subsequently grant relaxation with regard to experience was only a consequence of the fact that none of the candidates had the requisite experience to get them selected. As the Administration was in dire need of such personnel for the due operation, they bonafide though of granting relaxation. It was a uniform concession given to all similarly placed job aspirants. No act of discrimination can be complained of.
16. Annexure R2(b) is the minutes of Selection Committee meeting held on 10.5.2012 for evolving criteria for selecting candidates for the post of Oilman/ILMN and similar grades. The selection committee consisted of the Executive Engineer (Ele), Director, Port, Shipping & aviation, Accounts Officer, Secretariat and the Assistant Engineer (Shipping). The decision rendered by this Tribunal as per Annexure R.2(a) has been referred to therein. It was based on the directions contained in Annexure R.2(a) the meeting was held and decision was taken for granting relaxation. It was noted that the relaxation earlier allowed (after the starting of earlier selection process) was set aside.
17. Annexure R.2(b) shows the gist of the decision taken in the meeting as:
'Since candidates having required essential experience and desirable qualification was not available for consideration, the selection Committee later (vide their minutes dated 24.03.2010 recommended to select candidates as per merit alone.
As per the Hon'ble Court order and order of the Secretary (Power) vide diary No.3587 dated 31.3.2012, it is necessary to indicate in the re-
notification that the relaxation of experience will be granted if warranted by the situation.
Under the circumstances mentioned above and Hon'ble Court oder the Selection Committee to recommend to the following:
(i)The Higher qualifications ie.,Diploma in Electrical & Electronic and Mechanical Engineering cannot be treated on par with ITI certificate which is prescribed as essential qualification as per the Recruitment Rules.
(ii)To give proportionate marks for experience and desirable qualification. For example if a candidate (Electrician/Wireman trade) is having one year experience in Central/State Govt. or Govt.
undertakings then he may be awarded 10% of 1/3=3.33%. Similarly in the case of desirable qualification marks may be given based on proportionate method.'
18. As per Annexure A7 eligible candidates were requested to submit their applications with the required particulars mentioned therein. It was further stated that the crucial date for determination of age shall be the last date fixed for receipt of applications ie., 30.11.2012 According to the applicant the date for determination of age should have been mentioned as 31.12.2011 as shown in A5. Since the entire selection process was set aside there is no reasonable basis for the plea that the last date for receipt of applications should have been as the one shown in Annexure A5. Since fresh selection had to be initiated fresh notification Annexure A7 was issued and it was informed that fresh application should be submitted even by the candidates who had earlier applied and participated in the selection process. Therefore, it is not a case where a differential treatment was given to one candidate. In Annexure R2(c) it was directed by this Tribunal that it is for the authorities, in case they wish to give any relaxation, to abide by Annexure A4 order so that there may not be any grievance for those who have not applied with relaxed condition. It was done in order to redress the grievance of the persons who have not applied with relaxed condition.
19. In Annexure R.2(a) the common order passed by this Tribunal it was directed that the respondents can make relaxation of condition of eligibility as deemed fit by them in a legally sustainable manner. There was no direction that the candidates who had participated in the selection process pursuant to Annexure A5 should be allowed to participate granting relaxation regarding age. In Annexure R2(e), the corrigendum issued on 13.12.2012, it was informed that all the candidates satisfying the conditions stipulated in the notification dated 25.10.2012 will have to apply fresh for being considered to 31 vacancies notified and the applications submitted in tune with 19.11.2011 will not be considered as a valid application under the notification dated 25.10.2012 because of the changed qualification. Again it was clarified that the crucial date of determination of age would be 30.11.2012. Annexure R.2(d) is an order which had to be passed consequent on the decision rendered by this Tribunal in Annexure R2(a). Hence the contention that since it was not an order passed by the Administrator it is not legally valid also cannot be sustained. The contention that the respondents did not adopt a uniform pattern in the matter of selection is rather unsound and factually incorrect. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that what was done by the Administration is only to implement the order passed in Annexure R2(a) and renotified the vacancies including the 14 vacancies notified by Annexure A5 cancelling the earlier notification and indicating in the fresh notification (Annexure A7)that the relaxation will be granted if warranted by the situation and to the extent of the competent authority decides in case candidates possessing experience prescribed in the Recruitment Rules are not available.
20. It is also pointed out that the power of relaxation was not exercised at any point of time in a selective manner. The benefit of relaxation was made available to all the candidates so as to afford equal opportunity to compete for appointment to the particular post. Since the entire recruitment process pursuant to Annexure A5 had to be cancelled in the light of Annexure R.2(a) order, for want of eligible candidates or appointment as per Recruitment Rules, and since a fresh process of selection had to be started with relaxation of qualification to the extent, deemed necessary by the competent authority, the contention that Annexure A7 should be set aside to the extent it applies to the 14 posts covered by Annexure A5 does not stand to rhyme or reason. It is contended by the respondents that the screening committee which met on 14.12.2012 scrutinized all the applications and testimonials and concluded that no candidate including the applicant satisfied the essential qualification of experience as per Annexure A9 Recruitment Rules. The applicant contends that since he was not a party to OA 61/12 [Annexure R.2(c)] it is not binding on him. But so far as the respondents are concerned Annexure R.2(c) is binding on them since the directions were issued to them. They are bound to obey that order. It was observed by this Tribunal in Annexure R.2(c):
'In the reply statement filed by the respondents they have averred that if any relaxing is given to any candidate it will be notified appropriately giving equal opportunity to all candidates to participate with relaxed condition. The same is recorded. At present nobody is given relaxation as per Annexure A5 notification, the question as to whether the selection procedure is vitiated does not arise for consideration as of now. We make it clear that the authorities, in case they wish to give any relaxing they may abide by Annexure A4 order so that there may not be any grievance for those who have not applied with relaxed condition.' Annexure A5 mentioned in the order is the present notification ie. Annexure A7. Annexure A7 notification herein was issued pursuant to the direction contained in Annexure R.2(a) order, though it included the vacancies notified in Annexure A5 also. Therefore, the eligibility of the candidates under Annexure A7 notification cannot be ascertained or fixed on the basis of the stipulations contained in Annexure A5 notification. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant who figured as Sl.No.33 in the earlier check list had worked only as a paid apprentice for the period from 20.8.2010 to 19.10.2011. It is treated only as a desirable qualification and not as an essential qualification as per Annexure A9 Recruitment Rules. The period of apprenticeship is only to be treated as training for the candidates and not as 'experience'. Therefore, the respondents would vehemently argue that the apprenticeship evidenced by Annexure A4 can only be treated as a desirable qualification which can never be considered as an experience. It is the experience alone that is counted for reckoning the essential qualification. Therefore on that ground also the respondents contend that the applicant has no legal peg for his claim to hang on. The learned counsel for respondents also relied upon the decision in ESI Corporation Vs. TELCO - AIR 1976 SC 66 in support of his submission that the period of apprenticeship training cannot be treated as experience/employment. The respondents have also referred to the order passed by this Tribunal in OA 177/2013 where, considering the Recruitment Rules for the post of JE in the same department, it was held as follows:
'From the above decision of the apex court, we have no modicum of doubt that the apprenticeship training cannot be termed as experience.'
21. The 6th respondent has referred to Annexure R2(e) dated 13.12.2012 and submits that the reasons for issuance of this corrigendum are mentioned therein. Annexure R.2(e) has not been challenged by the applicant. Therefore on that ground also the applicant cannot succeed. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for Respondent No.6 that pursuant to Annexure A7 notification the selection process was completed by the Administration and the result of the same was published on 28.9.2013. Even though 31 posts were notified pursuant to Annexure A7 the Administration drew up a select list of 30 candidates; one post was kept vacant due to the pendency of this OA. The grievance of the 6th respondent is that he is ranked first in the waiting list published along with the select list and so he is the next person to be posted at the 31 st place which is kept vacant. The 6th respondent was having the requisite experience and qualification and so he was selected. We find no reason to hold otherwise. He is entitled to be appointed to the said post.
22. For the reasons stated above, this O.A fails. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Mrs.P.Gopinath) (N.K.Balakrishnan) Administrative Member Judicial Member kspps