Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Poonam Panwar vs Council Of Scientific And Industrial ... on 8 May, 2019
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
1
O.A.060/00514/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Pronounced on : 08.05.2019
Reserved on : 30.04.2019
OA No. 060/00514/2017
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MRS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER(A)
Poonam Panwar wife of Dr. Satish Kumar and daughter of Sh. Sat Narain,
resident of House No. 1508/31, Chhotu Ram Colony, Gohana Road,
Sonipat.
......................Applicant
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Naveen Singh Panwar
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Science and
Technology, Technology Bhavan, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi -
110 016.
2. Department of Science and Technology, through its Secretary,
Technology Bhavan, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi - 110 016.
3. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Ministry of Science and
Technology, Government of India, through Director General, CSIR &
Secretary DSIR, Anusandhan Bha3wan, 2 Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001.
4. CSIR-Institute of Microbial Technology, through its Director, Sector
39A, Chandigarh-160 036.
5. Dr. H.K. Sardana, Chief Scientist, Computational Instrumentation,
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research-Central Scientific
Instruments Organization, Chandigarh.
6. Prof. Y. Singh, Professor (Chief Scientist), Department of Zoology,
University of Delhi (IGIB) Institute of Genomic and Interactive
Biology, Delhi - 110 007.
7. Prof. Rup Lal, Professor, Department of Zoology, University of Delhi,
Delhi-110 007.
8. Dr. Balvinder Singh, Scientist, Institute of Microbial Technology,
Sector 39-A, Chandigarh-160036.
9. Dr. Sudesh Kumar, Scientist, Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research (IHBT) Institute of Himalayan Bio Resource, Technology,
Palampur-176061, Himachal Pradesh.
10. Dr. Hemraj Nnadanwar, Principal Scientist, Institute of Microbial
Technology, Sector 39A, Chandigarh-160036.
11. Dr. Charu Sharma, Scientist, Institute of Microbial Technology,
Sector 39A, Chandigarh-160036.
2
O.A.060/00514/2017
12. Dr. Anil Koul, Director, Institute of Microbial Technology, Sector
39A, Chandigarh-160036.
13. Prof. Sudhir Kumar Sopory, Former Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi-110067.
14. Chander Shekhar Sharma son of Govind Ram Sharma, resident of G-
103, CSIR-CEERI Colony, Pilani, Rajasthan-333031.
..................Respondents
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. I.S. Sidhu for respdts. No. 1-13.
Sh. Rajesh Tushar for respdt. No. 14.
ORDER
MRS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER(A):-
1. Respondents had issued an advertisement No. 02/2015 in the month of February for various scientific posts. One of the post with code 04 was for recruitment of one post of Senior Scientist/Scientist for Bioinformatics and Computer Science. Applicant had applied for the post of Senior Scientist.
Applicant details the various projects undertaken by her during her Masters Degree, her job as a Lecturer at the Hindu University of Management, Sonepat and Lecturer, Thapar University, Patiala and Sr. Assistant Professor at Ambala College of Engineering and the award of Ph.D degree and publication of research papers made her eminently suitable for the post.
2. Twenty five candidates were shortlisted to be called for the written test against the advertisement cited above. Applicant was one amongst them. Applicant qualified the written test and was shortlisted for interview on 08.03.2017. The short-listing criteria, according to the applicant, as laid down by the Screening Committee was as follows:-
Candidates scoring 55% or above marks in written examination have been shortlisted for interview.3
O.A.060/00514/2017
3. Subsequent to the interview, respondent No. 14 was selected for the post of Scientist Grade IV. Applicant asked for and received the result of the written test under RTI Act, 2005 and discovered that she has scored higher marks in the written test i.e. 38 marks. Besides her, only one other candidate Mr. Kundan Munjal had received 38 marks. The selected candidate, who is respondent No. 14, had secured 36 marks. The point that the applicant is making is that the selected candidate having got two marks less than the applicant, was not eligible to be shortlisted and appointed to the post.
4. The Screening Committee constituted for the selection took a conscious decision that only candidate scoring 55% or more marks will be shortlisted for interview. The applicant attributes malafide to this as such a percentage was fixed in order to select the 14th respondent. In support of her contention, she argues that the criteria of 55% marks was drawn up on the date the applicant and other candidates who qualified in the written test were called for interview. The final marks were awarded on the basis of performance in the interview, the recommendation letters and research papers in which the applicant had scored 49.25 and the 14 th respondent had scored 89 marks.
5. Applicant argues that she is more qualified, has more experience, has more recommendations and has more research papers in comparison to respondent No. 14, the selected candidate who has only one research paper. Applicant alleges that the Screening Committee had pre-
planned the selection of the 14th respondent as the candidate has experience of working as a Technical Assistant which, according to the applicant, is not 4 O.A.060/00514/2017 as per the requirement of the advertised post. The applicant also challenges the award of 65 marks for the written test and 100 marks for the interview on the ground that the marks for the interview is proportionately higher than the marks fixed for the written exam. The applicant attributes malafide in the selection as the 14th respondent was working as a Technical Assistant in the respondent institute and being an internal candidate, has influenced the respondents No. 5-13 to ensure his selection.
6. The prayer of the applicant is for setting aside the short listing of candidates based on the written exam and selection of respondent No. 14 for the post advertised.
7. The respondents in the reply statement submit that the applicant had applied for the post of Senior Scientist whereas respondent No. 14 had applied for the post of Scientist. The applicant is challenging the selection of 14th respondent as Scientist, a post for which she had not put an application. 48 candidates had applied for the post and 25 were shortlisted. The Selection Committee comprises of eminent persons in their respective fields and was fully competent to make a selection based on merit. In response to applicant's submission that the interview should have been videographed or audio recorded, the respondents submit that they had made no such arrangements. They also submit that the recruitment was for the post of Senior Scientist/Scientist and the applicant had chosen to apply for the post of Senior Scientist as she was overage for the post of Scientist. Regarding the applicant's contention that one member of the Selection Committee was absent, the respondents bring to our notice the CSIR (Recruitment, Assessment and Promotion ) Rules, 2001 wherein the Quorum 5 O.A.060/00514/2017 for meeting of Selection Committee was three members including the Chairman and hence, the absence of one member does not vitiate the recruitment process.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and respondents and perused the pleadings on record.
9. The original file of the selection process had been called for by the Bench. We observed that 12 applicants appeared in the written test and were awarded marks varying from 24 to 38. Two persons were awarded 38 marks in the written test. One person was awarded 37 marks and three persons were awarded 36 marks including the selected candidate. The written results were signed by the Chairman and three other members of the Selection Committee, which comprised the approved quorum for the selection. Of the 12 candidates who qualified the written exam, six were shortlisted for interview which included the applicant. The Screening Committee in order to shortlist the candidates on the basis of the written test, took a decision which they were competent to do so, that candidates scoring 55 marks and more may be shortlisted and called for interview. On the drawing up of this criterion, six candidates became eligible to be interviewed. The Committee was appraised about the instructions in the CSIR (Recruitment, Assessment and Promotion) Rules, 2001. The Selection Committee was also appraised that due weightage should be given to Scientists involved in product development, technology/technology innovation/applied technology, as per instructions from RAB-CSIR.
10. All the candidates were interviewed and were awarded marks on the basis of performance in the interview, qualifications, experience, 6 O.A.060/00514/2017 recommendation letters, research papers and their overall relevance to requirement in CSIR-IMTCH. Hence, applicant's presumption that only interview accounted for the marking, was misplaced. The marking included other attributes as detailed above, which all applicants had detailed in the job application form and the award of more marks is justified. The Committee had also decided that candidates scoring 75% or more marks would be considered for selection. Based on the above criteria drawn up by the Selection Committee, the 14th respondent was selected. A copy of the minutes of the Selection Committee shows that it comprised of eight members of senior level including Professors, besides the Chairman of the Committee. Hence, nine persons in all, constituted the Committee which selected the 14th respondent.
11. We have perused evaluation sheet wherein the interview marks had been awarded. The marks have been awarded to each candidate individually by each member constituting the Selection Committee. We also find that subsequent to the award of marks by each member of the Selection Committee, average marks were worked out and this average mark sheet is also signed by eight members of the Selection Committee and the Chairman. There has been no overwriting in the mark sheet of the individual members of the Selection Committee or in the sheet where the average was worked out.
12. From the papers placed before us, 18 persons had applied for the post of Scientists and 8 persons had applied for the post of Senior Scientists. As per terms in the recruitment notice, the posts of Scientist and Senior Scientist were interchangeable. It was informed during arguments 7 O.A.060/00514/2017 that when the selection of the best person would be made, they would be given a designation of Scientist/Senior Scientist as per the specific post for which they have applied and were found suitable. The respondents had also in the record placed before us given us access to the answer sheet. However, we did not go into answer sheet in detail, as the applicant had not challenged her marking in the written examination. There was no cutting or overwriting in the award of marks or in the evaluation by any member of the Selection Committee. Thus, there appears to be no reason to suspect the award of marks for the interview or the other attributes as listed above.
13. The respondents in the written statement also submit that the Selection Committee had followed the laid down procedure to make the selection for the advertised post. Respondents supporting the selection of the 14th respondent submit that he being an employee of the respondent organization was aware of the working of the respondent organization and was having practical experience in maintaining high end computing devices and he had experience of working as a Technical Assistant in the same field in CSIR -CEERI Pilani and may have performed better. In comparison, the applicant had teaching experience which was not the requirement of the advertised post.
14. The applicant also makes frivolous observations that she did not see the selected candidate at the time of the interview, thereby, insinuating that he did not appear for the interview. This is not supported by the members of the Selection Committee each one of whom had awarded the marks individually to the candidates who appeared before them. Recruitment to the post has been made by a nine member Selection 8 O.A.060/00514/2017 Committee as per CSIR (Recruitment, Assessment and Promotion) Rules, 2001. We see no reason to interfere in the selection made by this high- powered technical committee of experts and to challenge their assessment. Whereas the applicant had secured two marks more than the selected candidate in the written exam, she was fully aware that this was not the sole selection criteria and, the written examination will be followed by interview together with the assessment of written papers, qualifications, experience, recommendation letters, research papers and their overall relevance to requirement in CSIR-IMTCH. An assessment in this regard will also weigh in the selection process. Applicant securing merely two more marks than respondent No. 14 in one stage of selection, cannot justify setting aside the selection made.
15. From the original record of the selection placed before us, we find that the applicant's statement that the interview was held on 08.03.2019 and criteria for short listing was made after conducing written test, is not supported. The written test was held on 06.03.2017. The interviews were held on 08.03.2017 and in the minutes of the Selection Committee, the criteria adopted by the Selection Committee and the instructions of CSIR (Recruitment, Assessment and Promotion) Rules, 2001 have been cited. There is nothing in the recorded minutes to draw the conclusion that the criterion cited thereon was drawn on 08.03.2017. From this, we cannot draw an inference or a conclusion as drawn by the applicant that this criteria was devised on the day of interview. We find the criteria for selection has only been stated in the minutes and there is no evidence to show that this was drafted on the date of drafting the minutes as averred by the applicant. 9
O.A.060/00514/2017
16. We find that the criteria laid down in the advertisement and the essential qualifications have been adhered to in the selection process. There is no case that the norms of selection as advertised have been violated or vitiated after commencement of the selection process or that the qualification or the rules have been amended after advertising the post.
17. We also rebut the argument of the applicant that since the selected candidate was working as a Technical Assistant with the respondent, he was favoured. Such an argument we find is not only baseless and would preclude any internal candidate from participating in any respondents' recruitment and also put a stop to the career progression of internal candidates. We find that the applicant's above argument is not supported by facts as argued above, nor observed while perusing the documents of the original file placed by the respondents before the Bench.
18. In view of the fact that there was a high-powered Selection Committee, the Bench will not like to put itself into the shoes of the Selection Committee and re-select a candidate for the post. The Bench would respect the experts in the respective fields who had been selected to constitute the Selection Committee. The respondent CSIR is a premier council for scientific and industrial research in the country. Being so, we would not like to believe that they would select substandard candidates or those who do not fulfill their requirement of research in the scientific and industrial arena. The senior echelons of the institution who formed the Selection Committee had both knowledge and experience to select the best person for the job so advertised. Hence, the Bench is of the view that there 10 O.A.060/00514/2017 exists no justification to interfere with the correctness of the selection process and the offer made to the selected candidate.
19. The Apex Court has in various judgements emphasized the limitation of judicial interference in matters where expert bodies undertake the exercise of selection. Selections made by such expert bodies can only be assailed if some glaring malafide is brought to the notice of the Bench. The Bench cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee or embark upon assessing the relative merits of the candidates. It is not the function of the Court to hear appeal against the decisions of the Selection Committee and scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not is to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has expertise on the subject. This Bench would not put claim to such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered only on the grounds of illegality of patent material, irregularity in the constitution of the Committee, or following a procedure vitiating the selection, or proved malafide which has an impact on the selection. Applicant does not bring before us any facts which attract the above. Nor has the Bench noticed anything adverse from the scrutiny of the original papers handed over to the Bench.
20. The Bench would not like to arrogate to itself the power to judge the comparative merits of the candidates or consider their fitness or suitability for appointment. That was a function assigned to the Selection Committee. The allegation that the 14th respondent manipulated his selection is not supported by any material or reason and is purely a 11 O.A.060/00514/2017 conjectural finding of the applicant. We find no patent irregularity in the selection process.
21. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the selection process. This OA, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No costs.
(P. GOPINATH) MEMBER (A) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) Dated:
ND*