Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Chandrashekar S vs National Institute Of Mental Health And ... on 7 July, 2023
1
OA.No.170/919/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00919/2019
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
Sri.Chandrashekar.S
S/o Srinivasa.P,
Aged about 29 Years,
Residing at Kavala Hosahalli,
Janatha Colony, Sidi Hoskote Post,
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru-562 106. ..Applicant.
(By Advocate Shri Vishwanath Bhat)
Vs.
1.The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry Health and Family Welfare,
New Delhi. 110001.
2. National Institute of Mental Health
and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS),
Rep. by its Director,
Hosur Road,
Bengaluru-560029.
3. The Administrative Officer,
National Institute of Mental Health
and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS),
Rep. by its Director,
Hosur Road,
Bengaluru-560029.
4. The Registrar,
Karnataka State Open University,
2
OA.No.170/919/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
Muktha Gangotri, Mysuru-570 006. ....Respondents
(By K. Prabhakar Rao, Counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 4)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
a) To quash the reason assigned against SI No.3 at Annexure-I to the letter bearing No. No.NIMH/ RTI/PER (6) /2017-18 dated 05.12.2017 (Annexure-A10), passed by the 3rd respondent in so far as it relates to the applicant.
b) To direct the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to declare that M.A Degree in Mass Communication and Journalism is equivalent to P.G Diploma in Public relations in consultation with Respondent No.4.
c) To direct the Respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the candidature of the applicant pursuant to the Notification dated 21.01.2017 vide Annexure-
A7 for the post of Public Relations Assistant holding that the applicant possess all the Educational qualification prescribed for the post of Public Relations Assistant in the said notification dated 21.01.2017.
d) To issue any other appropriate order or direction as this Tribunal deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows:
3
OA.No.170/919/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
a) The Applicant is a graduate in Arts having acquired the same from Bengaluru University in 2012. Subsequently he passed the M.A Degree in Mass Communication & Journalism in the Examination conducted by the Karnataka State Open University in the year 2014.
b) The respondent No.1 herein issued a notification dated 31.12.2014 inviting applications from eligible candidates for various posts including the post of Public Relations Assistant. In response to the said notification, the applicant applied for the post of Public Relations Assistant. On receipt of his application the 2nd respondent by the memorandum dated 17.12.2015 informed him to appear for a personnel interview on 08.01.2016.
c) The applicant received a memorandum dated 06.01.2016 from the 2nd respondent interalia informing that there will not be any personnel interview scheduled to be held on 08.01.2016 and the same stands cancelled. Subsequently the 2nd Respondent through his letter dated 19.07.2016 refunded the application process fee of Rs.750 to the applicant.
d) The respondent No.1 subsequently, issued a notification dated 21.01.2017, inviting applications for various posts including the post of Public Relations Assistant. In response to the said notification, the applicant again applied for the post of Public Relations Assistant on 27.02.2017.
e) The applicant did not hear anything from the respondents with respect to his application. Therefore, the applicant was constrained to seek the 4 OA.No.170/919/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench necessary information by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005. In response to his application under the Right to Information Act, dated 18.11.2017, the applicant was in receipt of letter dated 05.12.2017 from the 2nd respondent enclosing therein the information sought by him.
f) The relevant information sought by the applicant and the reply to the same furnished by the respondent No.2 is as under
3. And now once again NIMHANS 09 applications were invited job interview for the same received against notification post on Feb-2017. I applied for dt. 21.01.2017.
that, so kindly let me know the current status of the process. None of the candidate has Interview is done. If not, why? the required qualification. With the specific reason? And Hence, the post is not filled. total number of applications received.
g) The applicant is a holder of Bachelor Degree (Bachelor of Arts) from Bengaluru University having acquired the same in the year 2012. The next qualification prescribed is Post Graduate Diploma in Public Relations or equivalent qualification from a recognised University/Institution. The applicant does not have P.G Diploma in Public Relations. But the Post Graduation i.e M.A in Mass Communication & Journalism acquired by him from Karnataka State Open University is equivalent to P.G Diploma in Public Relations.
h) The Respondent No.1 & 2 have mechanically come to the conclusion that the qualification of the applicant i.e M.A Degree in Mass Communication & Journalism is not equivalent to P.G Diploma in Public Relations. The Respondents No. 2 and 3 have failed to 5 OA.No.170/919/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench refer/consult the matter with the appropriate authority under the Act called "The National Institute of Health and Neuro Sciences, Bangalore Act, 2012" to ascertain the fact whether M.A Degree in Mass Communication and Journalism is equivalent to P.G Diploma in Public relations.
i) The applicant had ascertained from the Registrar of the 3rd respondent, that the M.A Degree in Mass Communication and Journalism is an equivalent qualification to that of P.G. Diploma in Public Relations.
j) The applicant, is aggrieved by the decision of the respondents No. 2 and 3, that he does not possess the required qualification for the post of Public Relation Assistant as informed vide Annexure-A-10 and having left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, presents the above application seeking appropriate reliefs at the hands of this Tribunal.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) The Respondent Institute vide Notification dated 31.12.2014 invited applications from eligible candidates for various posts. Out of these posts, post of Public Relations Assistant was also included. The Applicant was asked to appear for personal interview on 08.01.2016 vide communication dated 17.12.2015. In view of change of selection process of first Respondent, the personal interview to be held on 08.01.2016 was cancelled. The processing fee paid by the Applicant was refunded by the Institute.6
OA.No.170/919/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
b) The Respondent Institute had subsequently issued Notification dated 21.01.2017 inviting applications for several posts including the post of Public Relations Assistant which is at SI. No.32 as per Annexure-A7 already produced by the Applicant. The requisite qualification for the post of Public Relations Assistant is a Bachelor's degree from the recognized University and PG Diploma in Public Relations or equivalent qualification from a recognized University.
c) The Applicant was not possessing PG Diploma in Public Relations or equivalent qualification thereof. The Applicant, as per the record produced, was possessing Master of Arts degree in Mass Communication and Journalism. He claims that M.A. degree of Mass Communication and Journalism is equal to the qualification that of PG Diploma in Public Relations. There is no connection between Mass Communication and Journalism to the post of Public Relations Assistant. Hence, his case was not considered by the contesting Respondents.
d) Respondents received nine applications including the Applicant. None of the candidates possessed the requisite qualification for the post of Public Relations Assistant. Hence, all the candidates numbering nine including the Applicant, have not been considered for further process of selection.
e) The Respondent Institute has got every right either to fill or not to fill any of the posts as mentioned in the Notification dated 21.01.2017. Clause-10 of the Notification states that "in case it is felt necessary, the 7 OA.No.170/919/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench Institute may not fill up any or all the above posts and if so, no separate intimation will be given to the candidates".
f) The Applicant was not possessing requisite qualification in Public Relations and his application for the post of Public Relations Assistant was not considered. The Applicant has no right to challenge the selection process when his application itself is not considered for lack of requisite qualification. Having failed in the preliminary stage of considering applications by the Respondent, the Applicant cannot challenge the selection process on the ground that his application was not considered. The plea of Applicant is legally unsustainable and hence the same is liable to be rejected by this Tribunal.
g) The contention of the Applicant that he had ascertained from third Respondent (Administrative Officer, NIMHANS) that M.A. Degree in Mass Communication and Journalism is equivalent to PG Diploma in Public Relations, is hereby denied as false.
4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
5. In the present case, the applicant is claiming that the educational qualification possessed by him, (M.A Degree in Mass Communication and Journalism, obtained from Karnataka State Open University) should be considered as equivalent qualification to that of Post Graduate Diploma in Public Relations.
8
OA.No.170/919/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
6. However, the respondents have categorically stated that they do not consider the qualification of M.A Degree in Mass Communication and Journalism to be equivalent to the prescribed qualification of Post Graduate Diploma in Public Relations.
7. The Respondents, being the Recruiting agency as well as the Appointing Authority is well within its right to consider whether the qualifications held by the applicant should be considered as equivalent to the qualifications prescribed for the post. It is not a legal imperative on their part to consult any other body to ascertain the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications required for any post, to the qualifications possessed by the candidate. It would also be inappropriate for this Tribunal to issue a mandamus declaring that the two qualifications should be considered as equivalent for the purpose of determining eligibility of the applicant to be considered for appointment.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3602/2020 in the case of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & anr. vs. Anil Kumar Das, has particularly observed in para 7.3 as follows:
"Thus, as held by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the Courts to consider and assess. A greater latitude is permitted by the Courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post. There is a rationale behind it. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an Institution or an Industry or an 9 OA.No.170/919/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench Establishment as the case may be. The Courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications."
9. The respondents have categorically stated that they do not consider the qualification held by the applicant as equivalent to the qualification prescribed for the post. They have also informed that 9 applications were received against the notification dated 21.1.2017. None of the candidates had the required qualifications. Hence, the post is not yet filled up.
10. Keeping the above facts in view, the OA lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/vmr/