Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Sandeep K vs D/O Space on 24 October, 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No. 180/00121/2016
Thursday, this the 24th day of October, 2024.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. V. RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Sandeep K, Aged 25 years,
S/o. Kunjiraman Nair,
Elonthikkal House, Panangad P.O,
Balussery, Kozhikode District, Pin - 673 612. - Applicant
[By Advocates : Mr. S. Shyam Kumar]
Versus
1. The Union of India represented by the Secretary to
Government, Department of Space,
Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 022.
Represented by its Director.
3. The Administrative Officer (R&R),
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 022.
4. Arun S,
Ushus, Chunayiravila,
Sasthavattom Kattayikonam P.O,
Thiruvananthapuram District, Pin - 695 584.
2
O.A No. 180/00121/2016
5. Gayathri S.L,
Chithira, Near Main Gate, Nalanchira,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 004.
6. Sarath S,
Thiruvonam, Kizhuvilam, Mannom,
Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram District, Pin - 695 104.
7. Sreekanth S,
S.S. Nilayam MNR - 75,
Madavila Lane, Sreekaryam P.O,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 017.
8. Nikhil C.R,
Chaliyil House, Kattootr P.O,
Nedumpura, Thrissur - 680 702.
9. Anoop S,
Ushus, Chunayiravila, Sasthavattom,
Kattayikonam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 584.
10. Anakha S.S.,
Shelvi Vilas, Pakal Kuri P.O.,
Pallickal, Kilimanoor,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 604. - Respondents
[By Advocates: Mr. N. Anilkumar SPC for R-1 to 3.
Mr. R. Sreeraj for R-4 to 10]
The Original Application having been heard on 26.09.2024, the
Tribunal on 24.10.2024 delivered the following:
3
O.A No. 180/00121/2016
ORDER
Per: Justice K. Haripal, Judicial Member In response to the Annexure A-1 notification issued by the 2 nd respondent inviting applications for different posts including Electronic Mechanic, applicant had submitted Annexure A-2 application. He underwent initial screening written test and came out successful, following which, was directed to appear for interview and Trade Test. The written test was held on 21.02.2015, interview on 21.04.2015 then underwent trade test and the final select list, Annexure A-10 was published on 04.06.2015. The name of the applicant does not find place in the Select List. Aggrieved by the same the applicant has approached the Tribunal seeking to quash Annexure A-10 dated 07.10.2015 and set aside the same to the extent of selection and appointment of respondents 4 to 10, to direct respondents 2 and 3 to recast the select list of Technician B Electronic Mechanic and to appoint the applicant to one of the unreserved posts. 4
O.A No. 180/00121/2016
2. Evidently, Annexure A-1 notification was issued on 11.08.2014; inviting application for 15 posts including that of Electronic Mechanic. 12 post of Electronic Mechanic were notified, 7 vacancies in the un-reserved category, four for OBCs and one for SC. The qualifications were SSLC/SSC pass, ITI/NTC/NAC in electronic mechanic trade. It is further stated in the notification that once online applications are submitted, initial screening will be conducted through a written test for shortlisting the candidates. It is further specified that 'written test score will not reflect in the final selection process. The final selection will be based on the performance of the candidate in the interview.' The grievance of the applicant is that in the notification there was no stipulation that interview will be followed by trade test. Further in the general instructions to the candidates shortlisted for interview, it was stated that after the interview they will have to undergo the trade test as well. The applicant underwent the trade test as well. According to him, the result was not published 5 O.A No. 180/00121/2016 in the website, then he made enquiries under the RTI Act and to his surprise gathered that even though he had secured 2 nd highest marks in the interview, was not included in the final Select List. In Annexure A-7 he is shown at Sl.no.30 in the order of merit, having secured 24 out of 30 marks in the interview and 48.83 marks out of 70 in the trade test, thus totalling 72.83 marks out of 100.
3. Applicant submits that Annexure A-10 is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. The respondents have changed the method of selection after commencement of the selection procedure. After notifying that the selection will be based on performance in the interview and without mentioning anything about the trade test, there is no justification in adding the marks obtained in the trade test as a criteria for selecting the candidates. Such a criteria has been incorporated after commencement of the selection process. It is his further case that everything was done to favour some of the candidates, those who were serving the VSSC in temporary capacity. 6
O.A No. 180/00121/2016 The questions in the trade test for all the four days were the same. So it was easy for those who participated from the 2 nd day onwards to know the questions; the names of the candidates were shown in the answer sheet of the trade test. Thus the candidates could be identified, there was no secrecy in the conduct of the test. Even though the applicant had tried to gather details under the RTI Act, necessary details were not furnished to him.
4. Referring to Annexure A-11 notification issued by the respondents on 11.07.2015 for appointment of Draughtsman B, it is clear that the final selection criteria was based on interview and trade test. Without notifying such a criteria, the respondents were not justified in adding marks of trade test as well, as criteria for the selection.
5. Respondents 1 to 3 have not disputed the basic contentions of the applicant. According to them, in response to Annexure A-1 notification, 2477 applications were received to the 7 O.A No. 180/00121/2016 post of Electronic Mechanic. As it was not practicable to call all the candidates for trade test and interview, a written test was conducted on 21.02.2015 and 123 candidates were shortlisted. Those 123 candidates were subjected to interview and trade test and a final list of 86 candidates who qualified was published.
6. According to the respondents, since Annexure A-1 notification included administrative posts like Fireman-A, where selection procedure did not include trade test, among the general conditions. Thus clause 11 was included for the awareness of the candidates where it was inadvertently mentioned that final selection will be based on performance in the interview. However, in Annexure A-4 it was clearly mentioned that there would be skill test for the candidates who qualify in the interview. The applicant attended the interview and skill test and secured 24 and 48.83 marks respectively with aggregate marks 72.83 and was placed in 30 th position in Annexure A-7 merit list. The eligibility was assessed based on the 8 O.A No. 180/00121/2016 performance of the candidates both in the interview and skill test, as per the recruitment norms. According to the respondents among the 12 vacancies in Electronic Mechanic Trade, 2 vacancies were reserved for persons with disabilities and ex-servicemen. Two ex servicemen got selected belonged to UR category. The applicant being placed at 30th rank could not be empanelled for selection.
7. The official respondents have repeatedly contended that the selection criteria adopted as per the extant recruitment norms which included trade test and interview, candidate securing highest marks alone could become eligible for selection. It was an inadvertent mistake that final selection criteria was shown as performance in the interview. However, when they were called for interview, candidates were told that there would be a skill test.
8. It is further stated by the respondents that candidate No.39 in the select list had the highest score of 25.80 marks in the interview. There were other candidates who secured good marks in 9 O.A No. 180/00121/2016 the interview.
9. According to the respondents a person holding the post of technician should have practical knowledge in use of machines or science in workshop/laboratory, he should be skillful in handling the equipments. The post of technician is a purely skill based job and hence to test a candidate for such posts, his skill level is of paramount importance. Selection to such a post cannot be solely based on interview.
10. The respondents have denied the allegations that same questions were given for trade tests on all the four days. Acccording to them question papers for 86 candidates who qualified for the trade test contained similar questions with same marks but with different values for each candidate retaining same level of difficulty to ensure better comparison of test results. Each question paper contained matters for evaluation of 42 parameters with same level of difficulty for all candidates. Each candidate was issued with question paper at 10 O.A No. 180/00121/2016 random and they had to do manually the electronic, mechanical and fitting operations of the required components on to the board by soldering etc. which called for and depend on the skills of the candidate; two question papers were not identical. Moreover evaluation of the trade test output was done by duly constituted committee consisting of responsible senior officials; that evaluation was done as per question paper numbers and not by the name of the candidates. It is further stated that the recruitment section does not maintain any data base of candidates who attended interview and also worked on contract basis as the recruitment norms did not prescribe experience.
11. To sum up, the official respondents have maintained that stipulation that selection through interview alone was an inadvertent mistake, post of technician being skilled, based on field job, only such candidate who proved his skill alone could be appointed with their practical skill had to be evaluated.
11
O.A No. 180/00121/2016
12. The party respondents 4 to 10 also supported the contentions of the official respondents. According to them after having undergone trade test with open eyes, the applicant cannot cry foul on the criteria adopted by the respondents. The criteria was adopted based on the recruitment norms. After having attended the trade test the applicant is estopped by acquiescence and cannot be heard to say that there is change of rules. Such a principle has no applications to the facts of the case. Here there was no change in the rules but only an assertion of the prevailing rules.
13. In support of the contentions of the official respondents they have stated that trade test was conducted for ascertaining the basic trait in skill in handling the equipments and produce the desired result in a stipulated time frame. These respondents who were selected have undergone the same procedures. Therefore, they also pleaded for dismissing the Original Application.
14. We heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned 12 O.A No. 180/00121/2016 Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for the party respondents.
15. Adv. Sri.Shyam Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant asserted that there is clear change of rules after the commencement of the selection process which was not advertised in the notification. He also highlighted the hesitancy on the part of the respondents in giving correct pieces of information to the applicant under the RTI Act. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision reported in K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another { 2008 (3) SCC 512}.
16. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 pointed out that being a technical post the applicant cannot be heard to say that he should have been appointed based on his performance in the interview alone without assessing performance in the skill test, which is sacrosanct. Referring to clause-11, the learned counsel pointed out that it was an inadvertent mistake crept in Annexure A-1 that his 13 O.A No. 180/00121/2016 performance in the skill test also required to be assessed for appointment.
17. Adv. Sri Sreeraj representing the party respondents submitted that notification dehors recruitment norms cannot prevail. Pointing out the sequences of events he submitted that atleast on 19.01.2015 the applicant was alerted about the need to undergo the trade test. In the recruitment norms also such a trade test is mentioned. Moreover, after attending the test with open eyes, he cannot complaint that the selection norms were changed. According to the learned counsel the principle of 'Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt' is applicable and only those who are vigilant can seek any remedy. According to the learned counsel the applicant ought to have approached this Tribunal immediately after 19.01.2015. He also pointed out that even after seeking numerous adjournments, the applicant did not file any rejoinder.
18. The facts are not in dispute. The applicant had applied for the post of Electronic Mechanic in the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre; 14
O.A No. 180/00121/2016 he underwent the written test and was included in the list of 123 shortlisted candidates for interview. It is also the admitted case that the interview was followed by a trade test and the final select list was based on the aggregate marks secured by the candidates in the interview as well as trade test. Out of the 30 marks in the interview he got 24. Similarly in the skill test he secured 48.83 marks out of 70. Thus he secured secured 72.83 marks out of 100. In Annexure A-7, score list prepared in the descending order he is in 30 th position and was not considered for appointment.
19. Annexure A-1 is the notification dated 11.08.2014. It is specifically stated that initially, written test will be conducted for shortlisting the candidates. However, it is made clear that such a written test is conducted only for preliminary screening and the written test score will not reflect in the final selection process. In the same breath it is stipulated that the final selection will be based on the performance of the candidate in the interview. It may be true that such a condition was incorporated generally for all posts including 15 O.A No. 180/00121/2016 administrative posts. There is no whisper in Annexure A-1 that the interview would be followed by trade test, performance in that test will be evaluated and that would be the major criteria for the ultimate selection.
20. It is true that necessity of undergoing a trade test followed by interview was conveyed to the candidates only on 19.01.2015, when the call letter for the written test was issued. In the instruction to the candidates in Annexure A-3 it is stated thus:-
"The interview for the shortlisted candidates is tentatively scheduled during the second week of March 2015 onwards. The result of written test and the interview/trade test schedule will be displayed in the VSSC website http://www.vssc.gov.in on or after 26.02.2015. No separate individual communication will be sent for interview/trade test to the eligible candidates. Therefore, the candidates are advised to visit the website on or after 26.02.2015."
21. Thereafter Annexure A-4 list of candidates shortlisted for interview and trade test was published with schedule for interview from 21.04.2015 to 24.04.2015. The name of the applicant appears 16 O.A No. 180/00121/2016 among the candidates scheduled for 21.04.2015. In the general instructions to the candidates shortlisted for interview, in Annexure A4(7)4 it is stated that 'those candidates who qualify in the interview will have to undergo trade test either on the same day or on the following day of interview. Therefore, please note that you may have to stay for the next day also, if required, at your own expenses.'
22. As indicated earlier, the applicant underwent interview as well as trade test and was placed at Sl.No.30 in the list of 86 candidates. The major grievance of the applicant is that he was asked to undergo the trade test against the stipulation in the notification and disregarding the marks secured in the interview, was placed much at a lower place. This was done to favour candidates of the respondents' choice who had experience in the VSSC on temporary basis.
23. These allegations are denied by the respondents. But it is clear like day light that the respondents have conducted the selection disregarding the method incorporated in the Annexure A-1 17 O.A No. 180/00121/2016 notification. It is the settled principle of law that rules of games, that is the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the selection process has commenced. This has been reiterated by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. But we can notice that such a principle has been thrown to the winds by the respondents with impunity. The argument of the official respondents that omission to include the criteria of assessing the trade test was inadvertent, cannot stand to reason.
24. First of all, it is very patent that Annexure A-1 states about selection based on the performance of the candidates in the interview. We accept that it being a technical post, assessment of the skill of the candidates was very material. It is also true that the need to undergo the trade test was conveyed for the first time only through Annexure A-3 issued on 19.01.2015. Respondents cannot be blamed for subjecting the candidates to a skill test for assessing his skill or talent to discharge the functions of a technician. But in Annexure A-3 or in 18 O.A No. 180/00121/2016 Annexure A-4 it is not stated that such a trade test would be subject to any objective assessment and marks will be awarded for the same.
25. If it was an inadvertent omission on the part of the respondents notifying requirement of subjecting the candidates to trade test, that could have been very well corrected by issuing a corrigendum or alerting the candidates before subjected to interview and trade tests. It is here that the argument of the applicant gets reinforced.
26. As we have pointed out earlier, we cannot blame the respondents for subjecting a prospective technician to skill test but when the method of selection was incorporated in the notification, nowhere it is informed that the skill test or trade test will be assessed and that would be the major criteria for the final selection. In Annexure A-3 call letter dated 19.05.2015 it is only stated very casually that the candidates would have to undergo interview/trade test. Similarly, in Annexure A-4 also it is stated that to undergo trade test 19 O.A No. 180/00121/2016 following interview, the candidate would have to overstay. In the communication for interview it is not stated that performance in the trade test would be the major criteria for evaluating the eligibility of the candidates.
27. The argument of Sri Sreeraj that the case of the applicant should fall under the principle of estoppel by acquiescence does not stand to reason. As we have already noticed, in Annexures A-3 and A- 4 only a general mention is made about the skill test. It is not stated anywhere that eligibility will be assessed by awarding 30 marks for the interview and 70 marks for the skill test and that aggregate marked will be taken into consideration for drawing the final panel. If only such elementary basic pieces of information were furnished to candidates like the applicant could be blamed for not resorting to legal remedies on receipt of Annexures A-3 and A-4. In other words, documents communicated to the applicant do not reveal any indication about the nature of the skill test or that it would be the 20 O.A No. 180/00121/2016 major criteria in the selection process. Even in Annexure A-4 better particulars are not furnished.
28. The allegations of favoritism and non disclosure of material details have to be appreciated in this background. Applicant has a clear case that some of the selected candidates were working on contract basis in VSSC, they were in a vantage position, that the same questions were given to all candidates, the answer sheets in the trade tests were capable of identifying the candidates etc. To a specific question as seen in Annexure A-5, the name and designation of all employees (regular and contract) who were working, has not been touched in Annexure A-6 reply, which is doubtful. It is also not believable that official respondents did not have records of candidates who attended interview who had worked in VSSC on contract basis.
29. In both sets of replies it has been stated that the interview and skill test were conducted as per the recruitment norms. We agree that there should have been skill tests. In Annexure A-1 it is stated 21 O.A No. 180/00121/2016 that marks in the written test will not reflect in drawing the final panel. But the respondent have not produced the said recruitment norms or the recruitment rules which insisted that trade tests should be subjected to assessment by giving marks and that it should form a major criteria for selection.
30. After evaluating the entire circumstances we are convinced that the official respondents have conducted the selection process by changing the rules of the game midway, which is impermissible. The stipulated selection criteria is based on performance in the interview. Final selection held contravening the norms in Annexure A-1 is bad and liable to be interfered with. We are inclined to set aside the Annexure A-10.
31. Learned counsel for the party respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel submitted that the party respondents are employed in the organisation from 2015 onwards and it is uncharitable to upset the selection process and unseat them at this belated stage. 22
O.A No. 180/00121/2016 Learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala { 2023 (5) KHC 347 (SC)}. But we find that in the decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not approve the act of the Administration. Committee of the Kerala High Court in prescribing cut off marks in viva voce examination in selection of District Judges, which was not in the original notification. However, even after finding that the selection process conducted by the High Court suffered from the vice of arbitrariness and invalid, the Apex Court did not quash the same nor any substantive relief was granted to the petitioners stating that unseating those who continued more than six years will not be in public interest.
32. It is very patent that this decision was rendered under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction conferred plenary powers on the Apex Court, which is not available to any other Court or Tribunal.
33. In the result we set aside Annexure A-10 and direct the 23 O.A No. 180/00121/2016 Respondents 1 to 3 to redraw the final select list of unreserved Technician B Electronic Mechanic, in tune with Annexure A-1 notification within 60 days from today. Applicant is entitled to get his costs also.
(Dated 24th October, 2024.)
V. RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K. HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
va
24
O.A No. 180/00121/2016
O.A No. 180/00121/2016
Applicant's Annexures
Annexure A-1- True copy of the advertisement No. VSSC-285 dated
11.08.2014 inviting application for various posts including Electronic Mechanic under the VSSC.
Annexure A-2- True copy of the application submitted by the applicant. Annexure A-3- The true copy of the call letter dated 19.01.2015 along with instructions to candidates.
Annexure A-4- True copy of the list of candidates short listed for interview for selection to the post of Technician B Electronic Mechanic. Annexure A-5- True copy of the application dated 17.06.2015 submitted by the applicant under RTI Act.
Annexure A-6- True copy of the reply dated 07.07.2015 from the Central Public Information Officer under RTI Act.
Annexure A-7- True copy of the list showing the total marks in the interview and trade test secured by each candidate in the selection to the post of Technician B Electronic Mechanic.
Annexure A-8- True copy of the application dated 17.09.2015 submitted by the applicant under RTI Act.
Annexure A-9- True copy of the reply dated 16.10.2015 from the Central Public Information Officer under RTI Act.
Annexure A-10- True copy of the select list dated 07.10.2015 published in 25 O.A No. 180/00121/2016 respect of the post of Technician B Electronic Mechanic. Annexure A-11- True copy of the Advertisement No. VSSC-289 dated 11.07.2015 issued by the VSSC Annexure A-12- True copy of the reply dated 18.12.2015 from the Central Public Information Officer under RTI Act.
Respondents' Annexures Annexure R(a)- True copy of the final selection panel published in the VSSC Website on 04.06.2015.
Annexure R-2- True copy of the relevant page of the compendium. Annexure MA1- True copy of the order dated 22.02.22 in O.A No. 121/2016 passed by this Tribunal.
******