Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Bijan Kumar Pal vs Rrc (E Railway) on 22 August, 2023
fe Sneed, yp . BO MLA. 374/2021 with 0.A. 465/2017 2. M.A.350/106/2019 (0.A. 350/00955/2017) pe Churamoni Mondal, po S/o. Ashok Chandra Mondal, ae Vill. + P.O. - Bachra, Dist. - Murshidabad, Pin - 742163, West Bengal. 3. M.A. 350/107/2019 (0.A. 350/956/2017), Biman Saha, S/o Late Anil Chandra Saha, Vill. -- Kachupukur (Hospital Road), P.O. - Bulbul Chandi, Dist. - Malda, Pin - 732122, West Bengal. 4, M.A. 350/108/2019 (0.A. 350/987/2017) Bapan Biswas, . S/o Late Gosto Behari Biswas, Vill. - Radhanagar (Khal Para), P.O.-Kamgaclu, -- Dist. - Nadia, Pin - 741254, (West Bengal). 5. M.A. 350/109/2019 (0.A.350/957/2017) Bikash Biswas, . S/o - Nirmal Biswas, Vill. - Dongkhira, P.O. - Barajiakur, -- Dist. - Nadia, Pin - 741404, West Bengal. 6. M.A. 350/110/2019 (0.A. 350/1021/2017) Biplab Paul, S/o - Kanu Chandra Paul, Vill + P.O. - Harish Chandrapur (Daily Market), Dist. - Malda, Pin - 732125, West Bengal. 7. M.A. 350/111/2019 3 . M.A. 374/2021 with 0.A. 465/2017 -- (0.4. 350/1019/2017) oe Anal Kumar Mahato, S/o - Bharat Chandra Mahato, Vill. - chaknagar, P.O. Katrikandar, Dist. - Malda, Pin -732124, West Bengal. 8, M.A. 350/112/2019 (0.4. 350/958/2017) Bibekananda Biswas, S/o Late Adyanath Biswas, 'Vill. - Bagakhali, ~ P.O. -- chhatina, Dist. - Nadia, -- Pin - 741160, West Bengal. 9. M.A.350/113/2019 (0.A. 350/959/2017) - Gobinda Biswas, S/o Joy Gopal Biswas, Vill + P.O. - Taraknagar, Dist. Nadia, Pin - 741502, West Bengal. 10. M.A.350/114/2019, (0.A. 350/948/2017) Debashish Biswas, S/o Madhusudan Biswas, Vill. - Chowgacha, P.O. Baikara, Dist. - 24 Parganas (N), Pin - 743245, West Bengal. 11. M.A.350/115/2019 (0.A. 350/94.7/2017) Jagdish Ghosh, S/o - Late Jitendra Nath Ghosh, Vill- Santoshpur (Bedepola), P.O. - Boribpur Dist. - 24 Parganas (N), Pin - 743710, © West Bengal. . 12. M.A.350/116/2019 (0.4. 350/950/2017) ~ 13. 14. 15. For The Applicant(s): For The Respondent(s): M.A. 374/2024 with O.A. 465/2017 Ashok Kumar, S/o Late Biban Choudhary, . Vill. - Tendubahar, P.O. - Rajandih, Dist. Rohtas, Pin - 802219, Bihar. "M.A. 350/117/2019 (0.A. 350/946/2017) _ Suman Sarkar, S/o Bikash ch. Sarkar, - Vill. Saltia, P.O. Habra, Dist. - 24 Paraganas (N), _ Pin - 743263, ~ West Bengal. M.A. 350/118/2019 | (0.A. 350/1001/2017) Mobassar Hossain Khan, S/o Nasim Khan, Vill. Kadampur, P.O. Rajgram, Dist. Birbhum, Pin-- 731222, West Bengal. 'M.A. 350/119/2019 (0.A.350/954/2017) Amarjeet Kumar Shaw, S/o Jawahar Lal Shaw, R/A Kankinara Jute Mill Line, Room No. 827, P.O. ~ Kankinara, Dist. - 24 Parganas (N), Pin - 743126. . West Bengal." enn Opposite Parties/Applicants Mr. S.K. Ghosh, Counsel Ms. D. Nag, Counsel Mr. A. Chakraborty, Counsel Ms. P. Mondal, Counsel 5 7 M.A. 374/2021-with 0.A. 465/2017 ORDER
Per: Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member:
The present M.A. has been filed by the original respondents for modification of common order passed by this Tribunal dated 16.03.2021 in M.A.No.105/2019 with 0.A.No.465 of 2017
- and other connected MAs.
2. It is noticed that while considering the claim of persons with disability (PwD) for 3% reservation under PwD quota and further to consider the claim against PwD quota with respect to vacancies to be filled up under direct recruitment quota as notified by the Railway authorities in the year 2012, this Tribunal vide common order dated 06.06.2018 disposed of a group of OAs including 0.4.465 of 2017.
In the said order, it was held by this Tribunal that, upon a bare perusal of the 2012 notification, we notice and much to our utter surprise that the respondents in the manner categorised each vacancy for disabled, have not maintained any general standard or follow any "general principle or rule. They have acted rather waywardly. The classification appears to be without any justification, rhyme or reason. Out of available 1983 vacancies, reserved only 5 -- (2-OH, 2-VH & 1-HH) vacancies for Trackman / Khalasi/ Valveman of Engineering Department, which jobs are sufficiently onerous, whereas excluded Cook/Peon/Helper of Engineering & Operating Department and Safaiwala of Medical Department from the purview of PwD Act and thus reserved only 32 posts out of available 4179 (computed earlier) for reservation. To us, such acts and action of the respondents, is a glaring example of administrative high handedness, 'arbitrariness and discrimination, and amounts to deprivation of helpless disabled in deliberate and 'conscious violation of provision of PwD Act rendering themselves liable to be prosecuted for such deliberate and non-observation of the Scheme of -reservation. In 2015, the respondents have perpetuated the same error by not computing the total strength of each cadre, reserving 3% thereof identifying posts for disabled and notifying them accordingly. The respondents have simply initiated a special recruitment drive for fresh disabled candidates depriving the Orthopedically disabled (OH) category candidates of 2012 notification by denying them appointment.
'i M.A. 374/2021 with 0.A. 465/2017 2.1. In background of the aforesaid observation and finding as well by taking into consideration that 2015 notification has been floated and same is underway and not yet concluded and normal vacancies (other than disabled quota vacancies) of 2012 notification has been exhausted, this Tribunal in its order dated 6.6.2018, in O.A. 609 of 2018 and connected O.A.s including O.A. No. 465 of 2017 directed the respondents as under:-
(i) To compute the total cadre strength in all the establishment for the purpose of Section 33 of PwD Act (ii) Reserve 3% of the same for persons or class of persons with disabilities of different categories such as blindness or low vision or Visually Handicapped or VH, Hearing Impaired/Hearing Handicapped (HH), Loco Motor disability / OH or Cerebral Palsy, in obedience to Section 33 of the PwD Act (iii) in compliance of Section 36/39 of PwD Act grant suitable switch over or interchange between three categories of disabilities (VH, HH or OH) --
against 116 unfilled disability quota vacancies of 2012. notification out of available 230 vacancies. (iv) Publish the merit list of disability quota candidates of 2012 notification within two months while including all such disabled candidates of 2012 notification who qualified in terms of merit but have been arbitrarily left out and deprived. (v) After completion of said exercise, the respondents were further directed to proceed with the subsequent notification of 2015 and liberty was granted to issue corrigendum to exclude equal number of vacancies of disability quota from the purview of 2015 notification which have to be filled up in terms of the directions issued above.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the group of O.A. were disposed of vide Order dated 6.6.2018.
Since the respondents have not complied with the directions issued by this Tribunal, the original applicants had filed MAs for execution of the order passed by this Tribunal (including | i 7 . : | M.A. 374/2021 with 0.A. 465/2017 M.A.105 of 2019 in O.A.465/2017) as well filed separate application for initiation of Contempt Proceeding against the alleged contemnor.
3.1. During the pendency 'of the aforesaid. execution/contempt proceeding, the original respondents being aggrieved by common order passed by this Tribunal dated 06.06.2018, had approached the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta by filing a Writ Petitions being W.P.C.T.No.55 of 2019 (Union of India & Others Vs. Amal Sarkar), WPCT 56 of 2019 (UO! v. Bijan Kumar Pal). Both the W.P.C.Ts came to be dismissed vide judgment -- dated 19.07.2019 (Annexure M/9 colly. refer).
While dismissing the said WPCTs filed by the original respondents, the Hon'ble High Court in the judgment dated 19.7.2019 observed as under:
"In this Writ Petition, an order dated June 06, 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereafter the "tribunal") allowing O.A. 609 /2017 is under challenge. Such challenge is at the instance of respondent of O.A. No. 196/2013.
We are informed that the Tribunal following the order dated June 06, 2018 which is under challenge herein, disposed of 0.A. 196 of 2013 by an order dated July 27,2018. In a proceeding for contempt arising out of the order dated July 27, 2018, compliance report has been submitted and the Contempt Application is awaiting for final disposal.
Apprehending that the contempt proceeding could end in conviction, the petitioners have presented this writ petition belatedly.
In view of the fact that the petitioners have decided to comply with the order dated July 27, 2018 which, we are informed was entirely based on the impugned order dated June 06, 2018, and such compliance was not effected preserving their rights, to challenge the order dated June 06, 2018, at any subsequent point of time, we find no reason to entertain this Writ Petition at this distance of time. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
"it shall be open to the petitioners to raise all points that are available to them in defence while defending the contempt application before the Tribunal.
Insofar as the respondents herein is concerned, we note that he has not applied for contempt but had applied for execution of the order.
The parties shall be at liberty to participate in such proceeding and raise appropriate claim/counter claims.
We hope and trust that the Tribunal shall pass appropriate order as circumstances warrant by execution and contempt proceedings."
3.2, -In the meantime this Tribunal vide common order dated 16.3.2021 (Annexure M/1) disposed of the group of M.A.s (including M.A. 105/2019 in O.A. 465/2017) filed by gt , i.
1f:
i:
i t i ;
i i i i 8 . M.A. 374/2021 with 0.4. 465/2017 the Original Applicants (for execution of the order passed by this Tribunal in Group of
0.A.s dated 6.6.2018). This Tribunal by taking into consideration the submission of Ld. _ Counsel for the original respondents that the respondents have prepared the list of 41 OH candidates to be considered for appointment with respect to Employment Notice No.0142 as well as considering the fact that the vacancies have not been filled up and therefore, 17 candidates from merit list including the applicants can be accommodated
-against the unfilled vacancies disposed of all the MAs with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties with a direction that the respondents shall consider the applicants in the MAs as well as the non-applicants who figure in the list of 41 PwD(OH). © Further, this Tribunal directed the authorities to fill up the 17 vacancies strictly in terms | of merit within a stipulated time limit of 4 months.
A, It emerges from the record that after the order dated 16.3.2021 passed by this Tribunal ' _ in the M.A.s for execution, the original respondents have filed the present M.A. i.e. 374/2021 under Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 before this Tribunal on 3.8.2021 seeking relief "to recall the order dated 16.03.2021 (Annexure M/1) by passing the appropriate order and / or pass any such other order or orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper",
5. The core submission of Learned Counsel for the applicants in present M.A. is that this Tribunal erroneously recorded in paragraph 7 of the order dated 16.03.2021 that "with the consent of both the parties". In this regard it is stated by the Counsel that no such consent was offered or submitted by the arguing counsel at the relevant time before this Tribunal. There is no scope to relax the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities {Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and, therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents cannot enlarge the vacancies of a particular Employment Notification.
- Further, it is stated that after currency of the panel has expired, there is no scope to increase the vacancies of PwD quota in respect of every employment notifications including Employment Notice No.0112 dated 16.08.2012 and centralised Employment Notice No.01/2015 (SRD/PWD). Further, it is stated that as per the instructions/guidelines issued by the Railway Board vide Circular No.RBE 121/2005 that after two years from the issue of panel the currency of anaes ane
- 9 | . -. M.A, 374/2021 with O.A. 465/2017 would expire, therefore, the Chairperson of RRC has no authority to recruit against any such employment notice as per the extant rules, currency of which has expired. 5.1. The respondents would further state 'that in the instant case, all the 15 applicants belong to orthopedically Handicapped (OH) category under: Physically . Handicapped Quota (PwD) of Employment Notice No. 0112 (EN No. 0112). That, being _unsuccessful candidates of the Orthopedically Handicapped (OH) category under PwD quota in respect of Employment Notice No. 0112, dated 16.8,2012, subsequently after | publication of the Centralized Employment Notice No. 01/2015 it is not open for the said unsuccessful candidates to challenge the earlier Employment Notice No. 0112 dated 16.8.2012.
5.2. The provision of Master Circular 13 dated 73.11.1990 regarding inter-se exchange of unfilled PWD vacancies amongst OH, VH & HH have already been superseded by DoP&T instructions dated 29.12.2015 wherein it has. been stated that unfilled vacancies of PwD in any category due to non-availability of suitable candidates, should not be filled up but shall be carried forward as a 'backlog reserved vacancy' to the subsequent recruitment years.
Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the applicant in the M.A. (original respondents) submits that during hearing of the main O.A. as well in the M.A. for execution, the original applicants by 'suppressing the material fact as stated hereinabove and by misleading this Tribunal obtained the order dated 16.03.2021 which is required to be recalled.
6. On the other hand, the opponents in the M.A. i.e. Original Applicant of the O.A. has filed their reply and denied the claim of Original Respondents as contended in the present M.A. 6.1. Ld. Counsel fot the Original Applicant of OA. (Opponent/Respondent in the present M.A.) would argue that this Tribunal by taking into consideration provision of Section 33 of the PwD Act directed the respondents to compute total cadre strength in all establishment for the purpose of compliance of Section 33 of the Act. Further, it. was directed to reserve 3% of the same for persons with class of person with different disabilities. Further, it was also directed to grant suitable switching over or inter-change ye 1 t i b L :
~. 10 M.A. 374/2021'with 0.A. 465/2017 between three categories of disabled against 116 unfilled disability quota vacancies with respect to Employment Notice notified in the year 2012 [out of available 233 vacancies,(198 of 2010 and 33 of 2012)] of disability quota and thereafter publish the merit list of candidates belonging to disability quota of 2012 notification and .also include all such disabled candidates who qualified in terms of minimum merit but had been arbitrarily left out and deprived. It is submitted that the respondents had challenged the judgment.passed by this Tribunal in WPCT No. 55 of 2019 before Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata as well WPCT No. 56 of 2019. The Hon'ble High Court while. disposing of the said Writ Petition observed that apprehending the Contempt Proceeding could end in conviction; the petitioners have presented the Writ Petition belatedly and have dismissed the Writ Petition. Therefore, it is not open for the original | respondents to re-agitate the issue which was already decided by this Tribunal in the order dated 6.6.2018 passed in the main O.A. It is submitted that, it is not correct on the part of the respondents to state that the applicants were declared unsuccessful with respect to EN 0112 issued by Eastern Railway. i is stated that, in fact, the applicants were declared successful and thereafter they were sent for medical test and had also been declared successful in the said medical test.
6.2. Ld. Counsel would argue that in the present M.A. the respondents tried to reopen the issue again which was decided long back by this Tribunal. It is not open for the respondents to agitate again that to on a new ground, which is not permissible after 'the Writ Petition filed by the respondents came to be dismissed.
6.3. Further, by referring Annexure M/2 page No. 45 -- 47 of the reply in M.A., Ld. Counsel would argue that as per the directions issued by this Tribunal in C.P-C. 91/2015 {Arising out of O.A..196/2013 (Swapan Sarkar & ors. v. UOI & ors.)] the respondents RRC, -Eastern Railway was required to supply certain relevant documents to the applicant/Counsel, accordingly, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents in the said O.A. vide his forwarding letter dated 10.10.2018 addressed to Ld. Counsel for the applicant therein handed over copy of note sheet duly signed by the then Chairman of RRC, ER (dated 10.10.2018).11
M.A. 374/2021 with O.A. 465/2017 In the said note sheet dated 10.10.2018 signed by the then Chairman, RRC, he has mentioned the details of panel of candidates etc. of EN No. 0110, EN. No. 0112 including the details of PwD candidates who fall under zone of consideration for the existing unfilled vacancies under PwD quota, along with said note sheet, all the relevant documents as well the list of 41 PwDs (OH) candidates of EN No. 0112 in which total 17 number of applicants are stated to be in the zone of consideration as per merit was also attached.
Further, it is stated that in para 6 of the said note sheet dated 10.10.2018 it has been stated that "now 41 PwD vacancies exist. If RRC/ER considers petitioners of 18 similarly circumstances of different 0.A.s of PwD (OH) candidates of EN 0112, 1B petitioners will be coming into the zone of consideration ds per merit (shaded and attached)".
The details of existing vacancies under PwD quota of Employment Notice No. 0112 and the all the documents attached to the said note sheet including the copy of list of 41 Orthopedically Handicapped candidates of EN. 0112 as referred in para 8 of said note sheet is part of record of the present M.A. 6.4, It is stated that, as per the material available on record, i.e. details produced by the respondents on 10.10.2018 and as per the said details, 17 nos. of applicants fall under the zone of consideration. This Tribunal had directed the Ld. Counsel for the respondents time and again to take instructions and to apprise about the details of consideration of the candidates who fall under the zone of consideration, but the respondents have not placed the details thereon before this Tribunal. Subsequently, on 16,3.2021 this Tribunal disposed of the M.A. directing the respondents to fill up the 17 vacancies strictly in terms of merit and in the list annexed to communication dated 10.10.2018, and if.any of the first 17 candidates refuse and does not turn up, the . respondents will proceed beyond 17 i.e, candidate placed at Sr. No. 18 will be allowed to be pushed up. Therefore, itis submitted that the order dated 18.3.2021 was passed ' 42 M.A. 374/2021 with 0.4. 465/2017 by this Tribunal not only to the consent-of both the parties but based on the material on
-
record more particularly the communication dated 10.10.2018. 6.5. Ld. Counsel by referring to the dictum laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Mahindrajeet Singh Bitta v. Union of India (2012) 1 SCC 273 submits that in the said judgment it was held that "disobedience of the order strike at the very rule of law on which the judicial system rests."
Further, it was held that, "when the party neither obeys the order of the court "Nor approach the court for making appropriate prayer for extension of time or variation of the order, the only possible interference in law is that such parties disobey the order of the court. In other words, it is intention not carrying the order of the court." He . further relies upon the judgment passed in case of Purushottam v. Chairman, MACB and anr. reported in (1999) SCC (L&S) 105 wherein it has been held that "right of the -- applicant'to be appointed. against which he has been selected cannot be taken away in the pretext that said panel in the meantime expired in the post has already been filled up by somebody else. Usurpation of posts by somebody else is not on account of any -- . ' defect and the part of the applicant but on the erroneous decision of the employer himself and right to be illegally taken away by the employer." 6.6. He submits that in the case of the applicants who are in the zone of consideration and as such, considering the material 'on record, this Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the claim of applicant for appointment. 6.7..
0.A. dated 6,6.2018 in WPCT, the said WPCT came to be dismissed in the execution or contempt application. The respondents cannot re-agitate the issue which was already decided. Not only that, based on the material on record, this Tribunal vide disposing the M.A. for execution, directed the respondents to fill up the vacancies strictly in terms of the merit list annexed to the communication dated 10.10.2018. Therefore, the present M.A. is misconceived and the applicant therein is not entitled for any relief of recalling of the order dated 16.3.2021.
He reiterates that, the challenge to the order passed by this Tribunal in the main - 2 ep Many, inte 13 --- , - M.A. 374/2021 with O.A. 465/2017 7, _. At the outset it is apt to mention that being aggrieved with the common order dated 06.06.2018 passed by this Tribunal in group of O.As including 0.A.465 of 2017, the original respondents had filed WPCT No. 55/2019 & 56/2019 which came to be: dismissed, While disposing of the said Writ Petition, the Hon'ble High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise points that are available to him in defence while defending the contempt application. before the Tribunal. Further, liberty was granted to the parties to participate in such proceedings and raise appropriate claim/counter claim with a direction to this Tribunal to pass appropriate orders as the circumstances warrant while disposing of the execution and contempt proceedings. -By referring the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble High court Learned Counsel Ms. D. Nag, for the applicant in the present M.A. (i.e. original respondents in 8] O.A. and Writ Petitioner in WPCT 55&56/2019) would argue that since the Hon'ble High Court has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the official respondents and liberty was granted to ventilate their grievances before this Tribunal, the original respondents have filed the present . M.A. for recalling of the order passed by this Tribunal dated 06.06.2018. 8 The aforesaid submission of the Learned Counsel for the applicant in our considered view is not acceptable mainly on the ground that after hearing both the sides and by considering the material on record including the communication dated 10.10.2018, placed on record by the respondents along with all the relevant documents indicating the status of unfilled vacancies and the list of candidates under zone of consider (PwD quota), this Tribunal had disposed of the M.A.s for execution vide order dated 16.3.2021. Thereafter, it is not open for the applicant to reagitate the issue regarding right of the applicant to be considered against unfilled vacancies if they fall in the zone of consideration against the unfilled vacancies under PwD quota,
9. . -As noted hereinabove, the said issue has already been decided by this Tribunal vide order dated 6.6.2018 and incompliance of it the details supplied by the respondents themselves before this Tribunal, the M.A. for execution was disposed of accordingly. Further, it can be seen that the liberty was granted by the Hon'ble High Court to the parties of said Writ Petition to raise their point inthe execution/contempt proceedings. e @ 14 - M.A, 374/2021 with O.A. 465/2017 . 10. It emerges from record that the present applicant has availed the liberty as granted by the Hon'ble High Court while defending the execution application. Therefore, now it is not open for the original respondents to reagitate the issue which has already been raised in the O.A. as well as execution application that too in the present application which has been filed under Rule 24 of CAT (Procedure) Rules. The said rule stipulates that, "This Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to | prevent abuse of its processor to secure the ends of justice." We do not find any justification to 'accept the submission of the respondents to recall the order passed by this Tribunal dated 16.3.2021.
11. - The submission of Ld. Counsel for the applicant herein that this Tribunal in para 7 had B 4 erroneously recorded "with the consent of both the parties.......". According to the applicants (Original respondents) have not authorized the Ld. Counsel who represented them to give any consent for filling up the 17 vacancies under PwD quota as observed & directed. 'by this Tribunal. Based on the said submission, the applicants sought relief in the present M.A. to recall the order is concerned, the same in our considered view is also not tenable for the reason that as per the material on record, more particularly, the communication dated 10.10.2018 whereby in | the note sheet signed by the then Chairman of RRC the details of the vacancy position under PwD quota and relevant documents has been provided in terms of the direction issued by this Tr ibunal in CPC. No. 91/2015. This Tribunal had time and again directed the original respondents to apprise about the s status of compliance/execution of order dated 6.6.2018 as well directed them to supply the details of status of vacancy position under PwD quota with respect to Employment Notice 0112 etc. and in response to it, the respondent RRC had supplied the details as discussed hereinabove by way of compliance report. Based on the said compliance report, Ld. Counsel for the original respondents reiterate the details as mentioned in the compliance report and this Tribunal had taken note of said submission as well the fact as _ enumerated in the communication dated 10.10.2018 and finally passed an order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the details supplied by the respondents vide their communication dated 10.10.2018 was erroneously interpreted by Ld. Counsel for original respondents or same has been accepted by this Tribunal erroneously. Suffice to state that, based on material on record, 5 . M.A. 374/2021 with 0.A, 465/2017 "more particularly, this Tribunal had disposed of the M.A.s filed by Original applicants for execution of the order dated 6.6,2018.
422, We are of the considered opinion, that in the light of the aforesaid discussion, none of the ground or submission stated by the applicant in the present M.A, justify to recall the order passed by this Tribunal dated 16.3.2021 in M.A. No. 350/0105/2019 (O.A. 350/465/2017) and - connected M.A.s.
13. Thus. the M.A. lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-- y _(Anindo Majumdar) . (Jayesh V. Bhairavia) \ Administrative Member Judicial Member sb .