Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Anish.S.S vs The Director on 31 March, 2017
Author: P.Gopinath
Bench: P.Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00184/2014
Friday, this the 31st day of March, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms.P.GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Anish.S.S.,
Shilpithundil House,
Kizhakkeathikuzhi Lane,
Udayamperoor, Ernakulam - 682 307.
2. Withdrawn as per order dated 19.6.2015 . . . Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.Vishnu S Chempazhanthiyil)
Versus
1. The Director,
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Thumba, ISRO P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695 022.
2. The Secretary & Chairman,
Department of Space,
Antariksh Bhavan, New BEL Road,
Bangalore - 560 094.
3. Manikandan.A.,
Tradesman B (Fitter),
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Thumba,
ISRO P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695 022.
4. Anoop.S.,
Tradesman B (Fitter),
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Thumba,
ISRO P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695 022. ... Respondents
(By Advocates Mr.N.Anilkumar,Sr.PCGC [R] [R1-2]
& Mrs.Naseeba.O.H. [R3-4])
This application having been heard on 13 th March 2017, the Tribunal
on 31st March 2017 delivered the following :
ORDER
HON'BLE Ms.P.GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Since the 2nd applicant in this O.A has withdrawn his application vide order dated 19.6.2015 in M.A.No.537/2015, the order in this O.A is made for 1st applicant only.
2. The applicant applied pursuant to Notification No.272 dated 7.7.2012 for the post of Technician B (Fitter). Though the advertisement notified 23 vacancies (UR-16, OBC-5, SC-2), the notification also stated that the number of posts indicated is provisional and may vary depending on actual requirement. Results were published and the applicant's name figured in the waiting list panel for unreserved category at Sl.No.21 (wait list starts at Sl.No.17) and at Sl.No.5 in the waiting list panel for SC community (wait list starts from No.3). The applicant was thereupon directed to submit attestation forms and special security questionnaire on May 9, 2013. But no further steps were taken. In the meanwhile, persons who secured lesser marks than the applicant have now been appointed as Technician B (Fitter) under the SC quota. Applicant argues that the rank list is due to expire on 24.3.2014 and vacancies are available to appoint the applicant.
3. Applicant argues that he secured more marks than respondent Nos.3 & 4. Taking into account the marks in written test, interview and practical, respondent Nos.3 & 4 secured only 109.03 and 109.08 whereas the applicant secured 115.75 marks. Yet they have been appointed in preference to the applicant under the SC category. Reliefs sought by the applicant is for a declaration that he is entitled to be appointed against one notified vacancy of Technician B (Fitter) under the Scheduled Caste Category and direct the respondents to take action accordingly.
4. Respondent submits that vide Advertisement No.272 dated 7.7.2012 VSSC had invited applications for different posts including the post of Technician B (Fitter) with Post No.1213. As per recruitment norms, selection of Technician B is based on skill test (trade test) and interview earmarked with 70 and 30 marks respectively. The total number of application received for the post of Technician B was 3479 against the advertised vacancies of 23 (UR-16, OBC-5, SC-2). It was not practically possible to call all the candidates for trade test and interview. Therefore in order to provide opportunity to all eligible candidates for competing in the selection process, a preliminary screening by way of a written test was necessitated.
5. Accordingly, a written test was conducted for the purpose of screening to short list the candidates for further selection. After the written test, 218 candidates were shortlisted based on the marks scored in the written test with separate cut off marks set for UR as 33, OBC as 31 and SC as 30. Shri.Ranjith MC, an SC candidate, scored 36 marks in the written test and hence got shortlisted under both UR and SC category, whereas Shri.Manikantan A and Shri.Anoop S who are also SC candidates, scored 30 and 31 marks respectively in the written test and they could not come within the cut off mark 33 set for UR category. However, by availing relaxed standards of lower cut off mark of 30 set for SC candidates, they became eligible for consideration against SC vacancy. The selection was based on the skill/trade test and interview and they scored higher marks than the applicant and therefore, got empanelled in the SC panel next to Shri.Ranjith MC who is No.1 in SC panel. Based on the total marks scored in both interview and trade test, Shri.Ranjith MC who is No.1 in SC panel also got placed in UR panel at No.10 and subsequently got appointment from UR panel. Thus, Shri.Manikantan A (No.2 in SC panel) and Shri.Anoop S (No.1 in SC wait list) moved up and became eligible for appointment against the two SC vacancies.
6. It is submitted by respondent that based on the vacancies subsequently reported to Recruitment Section on 30.4.2013 attestation forms and special security questionnaire were issued to waitlisted candidates including the applicant. However, in the meantime, ISRO Head Quarters vide OM No.HQ:ADMN:A.20(2):2013 dated 4.4.2013 (Annexure R-2) intimated on 20.5.2013 that waitlisted panel cannot be used for filling up of additional posts over and above the notified vacancies as per the directive of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.28488 & 29248 in Civil Appeal No.1133-1135 of 2010. Accordingly, action initiated to fill up the future unnotified vacancies from waitlisted panel was stopped and the applicant along with other similar cases could not be considered further. This position was informed to the applicant vide Annexure R-3 letter dated 12.3.2014. Respondent further submits that the applicant mistakenly portrays his total score as higher by including the marks obtained by him in the written test. The written test was conducted only for shortlisting the large member of candidates who had applied, to become eligible for selection by undergoing the trade test and interview, as advertised in the Employment Notice based on which rank list was prepared by the Selection Committee. The written test was conducted only for the purpose of screening, hence there was no stipulation in the Employment Notice for computing the score in written test for final selection. The aggregate marks scored by the SC candidates in both trade test and interview in the order of merit are as follows :
Sl. Name S/Shri. Total marks
No. (Trade Test + Interview)
1 Ranjith MC 80.27
2 Manikandan.A 79.03
3 Anoop S 78.08
4 Shiji S 77.75
5 Anish SS 77.63
6 Suresh Babu SS 76.43
7 Sreeraj TR 74.5
7. The applicant based on above tabulation scored less marks in interview and trade test than the 3 rd and 4th respondents Shri.Manikantan.A and Shri.Anoop.S. The applicant has been informed about the decision received from the ISRO Head Quarters/Department of Space in compliance to the directive of the Apex Court that waitlisted panel or extended panel cannot be utilized for filling up of vacancies over and above the notified vacancies. Even though vacancies were reported subsequently, the waiting lists could not be utilized for the same, as it would have violated the directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which precludes making appointment over and above the notified vacancy of 23.
8. At this point we would like to draw attention to an order passed by this Tribunal in a similar case (O.A.Nos.115/2014 & 116/2014). The relevant part of the order reads as under :
8. The issue that appears for consideration before the Bench is whether the applicants are entitled for appointment post Apex Court judgment that filling up of vacancies over and above the notified vacancies is neither permissible nor desirable being violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The applicants argue that they acquire a vested right for appointment as their juniors in the wait list had been made offers of appointment. It is also an admitted fact that the juniors to applicants who were offered appointment were not appointed as they had in the meantime been engaged in other jobs. But the point to be noted is that due to above circumstance of non-acceptance of offer of appointment, no junior was actually appointed. Hence the applicants cannot have a grievance on account of juniors having been actually appointed.
9. The applicants bring to our notice the note in Annexure R-1 Employment Notice which indicates that the number of posts indicated in the notice are provisional and may vary depending on the actual requirement. But we also note that the vacancy notification in O.A.No.115/2014 despite incorporating the above statement, has notified 12 vacancies in Valiamala and 2 vacancies in Mahendragiri of Heavy Vehicle Driver-A and 1 vacancy in Valiamala and 3 vacancies in Mahendragiri of Heavy Vehicle Driver-A and 1 vacancy in Mahendragiri of Light Vehicle Driver-A in O.A.No.116/2014. It is this notified vacancies to which the Apex Court judgment refers. Hence any appointment in excess of these notified vacancies would be impermissible post judgment being circulated by the respondents. However, this vacancy notification having been issued prior to the Apex Court judgment, the variation on the lower side may be permissible but on the higher side beyond the specified numbers indicated would not be admissible.
10. The Apex Court order was circulated to the respondent on 4.4.2013 and hence is operational thereafter as respondent might not be aware of the same prior to that date. The applicants have approached the Tribunal in 2014, on a date after the above order was circulated and hence is covered by the Apex Court judgment. The respondents cannot fill any vacancy occurring beyond the notified vacancies in Annexure R-1.
11. The Apex Court while delivering the judgment in Rakhi Ray & Ors. Vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 637 had held :
'24. A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate. In the instant case, once 13 notified vacancies were filled up, the selection process came to an end, thus there could be no scope of any further appointment.'
12. Applicants and respondents are covered by the above judgment.
The number of vacancies were notified by Annexure R-1 vacancy notification, whereas the number of vacancies can be reduced if circumstance so arise, appointment by increasing vacancies beyond the notified number is not permissible.
13. In the light of what is stated above, both the Original Applications dismissed. No costs.
9. The relief sought in this O.A being on similar grounds, is liable to be rejected accordingly, in the light of the directions of the Apex Court not to make appointment to posts other than that advertised in the Employment Notice. The O.A is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated this the 31st day of March 2017)
(P.GOPINATH) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp