Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Ritesh Suresh Khachane vs Ordnance Factory Board (Ofb) on 12 March, 2024
Bi OA No91/2022 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.191/2022 Dated this Tuesday, the 12° day of March, 2024 CORAM : SHRI R.N.SINGH, MEMBER UUDICIAL) SHRI RAJINDER KASHYAP, MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE) Ritesh Suresh Khachane, Age 34 years, Residing at: Gandhi Chowk, Varngaon, Tal. Bhusawa! 425 305, Mob. No.8381045255, Email: [email protected]. ~ Applicant (By Advacate Shri Vicky A. Nagrani) Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Indian Ordnance Factories, South Block, New Delhi 110 004.
2. Director General, Ordnance (C&S5), Directorate of Ordnance Manager (C&S), 10-A, Shahid Khudiram Base Road, Kolkata 700 001.
3. The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Bhusaval 425 203.
4, The Chairman & Managing Director, General Manager, Yantra india Ltd. C/o Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari, Amravati Road, Nagpur 440 021, ~ Respondents (Sy Advocate Shri N.K.Rajpurohit) 2 OA No.194/2022 ORDER {ORAL} Per: R.N.Singh, Member (udicial} By way of the Present OA, filed under cection 19 of the
--
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged order/communication dated 16.03.2021 {Annexure A-1} vide which the respondents have declared the applicant "unfit? for the post of Fitter General/Mechanical Semi Skilled on the ground that Temporary Disability Certificate cannot be the basis for claiming reservation under PH category.
2. In the present OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs > "8.8. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case fram the Respondents and after examining the same quash and set aside the order dated 16.03.2021 with all consequential benefits, &.6. This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the Respondents to hald and declare the applicant is eligible fo be considered under PH (VH} categary and accerdingly direct the Respondents to Consider hjs candidature for the post of Semi-skilled fittey General Mechanic under PH (VH} Quota issue Offer of Appointment with all consequential! benefits on Bar with the candidates who were selected and appointed along with the applicant, 3 OA No.191/2022 &.c. Casts of the application be provided for,
8.d. Any other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case be passed."
3. The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents by way of filing an affidavit in reply.
4. We have heard the Jearned counsels for the parties and with their assistance perused the pleadings on record, "8. The undisputed facts are that pursuant to advertisement dated 23.05.2017 for filling up various posts in Government in various Ordnance Factories under the respondent Nol, the applicant participated in selection process for the post Fitter General/Mechanical semi Skilled under OBC, "PH" category. The applicant participated in the relevant written examination. On being declared successful in such examination, he was called for document verification and trade test. Communication dated O1.10.2018 was issued by the respondents fonvarding therewith attestation form and informing the applicant that he Aas been provisionally selected for the said post. The applicant was directed on 28.12.2018 to report to the respondent No.3 for documents 4 OA No.194/2022 verification and medical examination, When the applicant came to know that various similarly placed persons have got offer of appointment pursuant te the afaresald selection orocess, however, he has not got such offer, the applicant preferred an application for issuance of offer of appointment as he was of the considered view that he meets all the requisite conditions in this regard. The applicant had applied with the Competent Authorities of the Savernment for issuance of Disability Certificate and Government of Maharashtra had issued Disability Certificate dated 24.06.2015 (Annexure A-2). In this regard, the sald certificate records as under :
"LL. The Above condition is Temporary, non-progressive, likely to Improve.
2. Reassessment of disability is recommended/after 5 years and therefore this certificate Shall be valid th (DD/MM/YY) 24/06/20.
3. The applicant has submitted following documents as proof of residence :
Aadhar Card."
6. When the applicant came to know that the certificate dated 24.06.2015 (Annexure A-2) indicated a provisional/temporary disability and in view of the Same, the respondents might not have issued offer of a 5 OA No.191/2022 appointment, the applicant approached the Competent Authority under the Government for issuance of the disability certificate and in response thereto the Competent Authority has issued another certificate, page 15, bearing dated 24.06.2015 such certificate records as under :
"Certificate No.. MHO320719870034313 This is to certify that {//We have carefully examined Shri Ritesh Suresh Khachane Son of Shri Late Suresh Ballram Khachane Date of Birth 19/07/1887 Age 31 year(s} Male, Registration No.2703/00000/1906/0934166 resident of House No Gandhi Chowk, Varangaon, Tal Bhusawal 425 305, Sub District Bhusawal District Jalgaon State/UTs Maharashtra.
Whose photograph is affixed above, and I/We satisfied that:
{A} He is a case of Low Vision.
{8} The diagnosis in his case is RE POST STAPHYLOMA LE MYOPIA, {C} He has 40% (in figure} Forty percent (in words} Permanent in relation to his (part of body} as per guidelines (to be specified}.
The applicant have been submitted the following document(s) as proof of residence Nature of Docurnent(s) : Aadhar Card."
7. In such facts and circumstances, applicant requested the respondents to issue the offer of appointment to him for the past under 6 OA No.181/3022 reference. However, the respondents have issued the impugned communication/order dated 16.03.2021.
3S. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that admittedly the applicant was found meritorious and as per the merit, the offer of appointment should have been issued to him and the same has not been issued by the respondents only on the ground that Disability Certificate dated 24.06.2015 {Annexure A-2, page No.1?) recards the medical conditions/disability of the applicant to be temporary, non- progressive, likely to improve. He argues that the same could have been brought to the notice of the applicant, however, the respondents failed and neglected the same and when the applicant came to know about such fact, the applicant has approached the Campetent Autharity and the Competent Authority has issued the certificate, page No.15 and the , same Certificate is in consonance with the requirement of the respondents. He further argues that on receipt of such representation from the applicant, the respondents have themselves got verified the authenticity of the disability being suffered by the applicant as well as the genuineness of the certificate issued in favour of the applicant. in 7 OA No.194/2022 this regard, he refers to the communication dated 01.09.2020 {Annexure R-3}, which is reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity:
"Sov of Maharashtra Civil Hospital Jalgaon Dist : Jalgaon 425 001 Civil Surgeon Tel.No.(0257} 2226611 Out word No./HBC Board/17763/2020 Email CS-csial [email protected] Civil Surgeon Office, Jalgaon Date ; 01.08.2020 To, Asst. Works Manager/Admin For General Manager Ordinance Factory Bhusaval {Maharashtra} Pin ~425 203.
Sub -- Direct Recruitment -- Disability Certificate Verification.
Ref 1) Your office letter No.File/O1/LB/04/181 Date 25.02.2020
2) Disability Certificate of Mr. Ritesh Suresh Khachane provisionally Selected far post of Fitter General {Mech}.
With reference to above letter regarding verification of disability certificate.
Certificate No.184137 outed 24/06/2015 issued by Medical Disability Board District Hospital Jalgaon is SADM (Gov. of Maharashtra) certificate and his temporary.
Certificate No.MH 0320719870034313 Dated 24/06/2015 issued by Medical Disability Board Gov. Medical College Jalgaon is UID certificate (Gov of India} and is Permanent.
UDID Gov. System has been started in Gov. Medical Jalgaon since October 2019, Patient approached for disability certificate, during his first visit his findings seemed to be Temporary but later on during his 8 OA No. L91/2022 second visit after few years when there was no improvement his finds became Permanent.
Same Dates appearing on both certificates is a technical fault as UDID Certificate has been issued after October, 2019 in GMC Jalgaon, Finally the UDID Certificate No.MH3207198700343313 js to he considered authentic and correct, You may however refer the candidate at Disability Board Gov. Medical College Jalgaon Gf you feel) for reassment of his disability.
Thanking you, Sd/-
Civil Surgeon Jalgaon"
9, Learned counsel for the applicant further adds that ance the respondents have verified the genuineness of the disability being suffered by the applicant, there was nO reason or justification available to them to issue the impugned communication dated 16.03.2021, He submits that the impugned cammunication/arder dated 16.03.2021 fs nothing but result of non-application of mind perverse on facts as well apa 5s on law.
t 1Q. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri N.K.Rajpurohit appearing for the respondents haye vehemently disputed and opposed the claim of the applicant by referring to the assertions made inthe reply. He 3 OA No, 1990/2023 argues that both the Disability Certificates submitted by the applicant bear the same date i.e. 24.06.2015. These certificates not only bear the same date Le. 24.06.2015 but afso gives two different age of the same applicant and this is sufficient to create doubt about the genuineness of the disability of the applicant or the genuineness of the Certificate issued in this regard. Moreover, the second certificate has not been submitted by the applicant along with his application online. He submits that in this view of the matter, the respondents have been well within thelr competence to issue the impugned communication and while exercising the power under judicial review, any interference by this Tribunal is not called for, ii. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, AZ. ft is not in dispute that the first Disability Certificate dated 24.06.2015 (Annexure A-2) is issued by an authority under Government of Maharashtra and the second Disability Certificate, page 15, Is issued by Department of Empawerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India. Further, on res QA No. 191 /2022 query from the respondents, it has been confirmed that the Competent Authority has issued the clarification vide their communication dated 01.09.2020 {Annexure R-3, supra}. Admittedly, the Disability Certificate appearing on page No.i5 and verified by the respondents vide their communication dated 01.09.2020 has not bean taken into consideration by the respondents themselves while issuing the impugned communication dated 16.03.2071. It is not In dispute that the post against which the applicant js applied is not filled up till date. Learned counsel for the respondents confirms this by referring to the written communication received by him fram the respondents on 12.03.2024, a copy of which has been placed by him on record, i3. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the OA js allowed with the following orders :
(i) the Impugned order/communication dated 16.03.2021 is set aside.
{ii} Respandents are directed to reconsider the candidature of the applicant for the aforesaid post of Fitter General/Mechanical Semi Skilled keeping in view the Disability Certificate dated 24.06.2015, page No. 15 of the OA read with the clarification received by the respondents i OA No.199/2022 vide communication dated 01.09.2020, page No.93 and issue offer of appointment to the applicant, if no other legal impediment is found in the matter.
{iif} The applicant shall be entitled for all the consequential benefits such as fixation of his pay on notianal basis, senlority based on his merit in the relevant selection process. However, the applicant shall not be entitled for arrears of pay. The aforesaid directions shall be complied by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
{iv}. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
{Rajinder Kashyap) (RN Singh) Member (4) Member (1) kme*