Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Harvinder Singh vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 7 September, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH. I. O.A.No.060/00383/2015 Date of Decision : 07.09.2015 II.O.A.No.060/00394/2015 Reserved on: 03.09.2015 CORAM: HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER HONBLE DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.O.A.No.060/00383/2015 1. Harvinder Singh, s/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh, r/o Village Faidan, PO Sector 47, Chandigarh. 2. Manpreet Kaur, d/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh, r/o Village Faidan, PO Sector 47, Chandigarh. 3. Aksehpreet Singh Tamber, s/o Sh. Manjit Singh Tambar, r/o New Anaj Mandi, Near Bhatta Sahib, Ropar (Punjab). 4. Gurpreet Singh, s/o Sh. Suchha Singh, r/o Village Nabha Sahib, PO Dyalpura, Sadhia District Mohali. 5. Parvinder Singh, s/o Sh. Karn Singh, r/o Village Bhankarpur, District Mohali. 6. Kamaldeep Singh, s/o Sh. Inderjit Singh, r/o Village Darali, District Mohali. 7. Jaspreet Kaur, d/o Sh. Santokh Sigh, r/o Village Bande Malan, PO Jhilian Kalan, District Ropar. 8. Gagandeep Sigh, s/o Sh. Karm Singh, r/o Village Dayalpura, District Mohali. 9. Tajinderpal Singh, s/o Bhajan Singh, Street No.12, Dasmesh Nagar, Ludhiana. 10. Amandeep Singh, s/o Sh. Jarnail Singh, r/o House No.152/2, Maloya, U.T. Chandigarh. 11. Sukhwinder Singh, s/o Sh. Harjinder Singh, r/o House no.5152 Verowal, Jandiala Guru District Amritsar. 12. Shamsher Singh, s/o Sh. Sukhwant Singh, Indra Colony, Verka District Amritsar. 13. Viney Kumar, s/o Sh. Vijay Kumar, Top Khana Bazar, Ambala Cantt. 14. Sahul Rattan, s/o Sh. Mohinder Chand, r/o H-601, Sector 47A, Chandigarh. 15. Mohd. Javed, s/o Lal Mohd, r/o Piploo, Tehsil Bangara, District Una (HP). 16. Suman Devi, w/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh, r/o H.No.118, Village Behilana UT Chandigarh. 17. Amanpreet Singh, s/o Jagtar Singh, r/o H.No.3385, Sector 47/D, Chandigarh. 18. Inderjeet Singh, s/o Tarlochan Singh, r/o VPO Mullanpur Garibdass, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali. 19. Gurbachan Singh, s/o Kuldeep Singh, r/o Village Mirpur, Near Railway Phatak, PO Mubarakpur, District Mohali. 20. Gurpreet Singh, s/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh, r/o Village Mirpur, Near Railway Phatak, PO Mubarakpur, District Mohali. 21. Pawan Kumar, s/o Puran Chand, Village Chandi Kotla, PO Chandimandir, District Panchkula. 22. Shiv Kumar, s/o Sh. Kanwar Pal, r/o H.No.501, Ram Darbar, Phase I, Chandigarh. 23. Rakesh Kumar, s/o Sh. Ram Kumar, r/o H.No.305, Village Rapur Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula. 24. Kuldeep Singh, s/o Surinder Singh, Village and Post Office Takarla Tehsil Amb District Una. Applicants II.O.A.No.060/00394/2015 1. Shubham Saini, s/o Sh. Satpal, Village Khanpur Rajputan, PO Laha, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala (Haryana). 2. Isham Singh, s/o Jagmal Singh, Village Mangoli, PO Bhurewala, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala (Haryana). Applicants Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, CGO Complex, New Delhi. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Ministry of Defence, Army HQ, New Delhi. 3. Chief Engineer, Western Command, Chandigarh. 4. Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Zone, Chandigarh. 5. Commander Works Engineer (Air Force) Chandigarh. . Respondents Present: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, counsel for the applicants Mr. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the respondents O R D E R
HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
1. In these OAs relief has been sought as follows:-
8 (i) The respondents be directed to produce the entire record showing the total number of applications received in their office in response to the Advertisement (Annexure A-1) along with the data pertaining to number of applications received on last date every time when the last date of submission of application forms was extended.
(ii) The respondents be further directed to divulge the criteria adopted by them for the purpose of issuance of Admit Card to the candidates for the written examination.
(iii) The respondents be directed to issue Admit Card to the applicants for the written examination for the post of Mate which is now scheduled for 10.05.2015. The background of the matter being the same, these are disposed of through a common order. For convenience, the facts are taken from OA No.060/00383/2015 titled Harvinder Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors..
2. Averment has been made in the OA that respondent no.2 published advertisement dated 12.12.2014 in the newspaper / Employment News (Annexure A-1) through which applications were invited for filling 2265 vacancies of Mate under various formations including Western Command. The last date for receipt of applications was stated to be 03.01.2015 and the written test was scheduled for 15.02.2015. For reasons best known to the respondents, the last date of submission of applications was extended twice and finally the date of the written examination was fixed as 10.05.2015.
3. As per para 11 of the advertisement, the education qualification for the post of Mate was as follows:-
Matriculation or equivalent exam of recognized University / Board or Industrial Training Institute pass certificate from a recognized Institute. Further para 16(j) of the advertisement dealt with the Scheme of Examination for the post of Mate which stipulated the written examination consisting of four papers of maximum 130 marks. Para 17 of the advertisement dealt with Mode of Selection and para 17(a) of the advertisement stipulated thus:-
Candidates will be shortlisted on the basis of their performance in the written examination and interview (if applicable to that category). Candidates who qualify will be recommended for appointment by recruitment Agency. The applicants who had matriculate qualification submitted their applications in the prescribed proforma prior to the last date of submission of application forms but Admit Cards were not issued to them. The applicants came to know that the Admit Cards were issued only to the candidates who had secured 65% marks in the Matriculation examination.
4. In the grounds for relief it has, inter-alia, been stated as follows:-
i) As per para 16(j) of the advertisement (Annexure A-1) which deals with Scheme of Examination for the post of Mate, the selection is based upon the written examination consisting of four papers of maximum 130 marks. Further para 17 of the advertisement (Annexure A-1) deals with Mode of Selection and para 17(a) of the advertisement stipulates that the candidates will be shortlisted on the basis of their performance in the written examination and interview (if applicable to that category). Candidates who qualify will be recommended for appointment by Recruitment Agency. Thus, it is clear that the selection for appointment to the post of Mate is purely based upon the performance in the written examination and percentage of marks in prescribed minimum qualification has no relevance.
ii) The advertisement (Annexure A-1) nowhere prescribes that eligibility to appear in the written examination shall be determined on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in the matriculation examination. The only eligibility condition as prescribed in the advertisement (Annexure A-1) is that candidates applying for the post of Mate must have the qualification of Matriculation or equivalent exam of recognized University / Board or Industrial Training Institute pass certificate from a recognized Institute. There is no such condition that even only those candidates will be eligible for applying for the post of Mate who have secured minimum 50% in Matriculation or ITI.
iii) There is no basis for determining the alleged minimum marks in the basis qualification for the purpose of determining the eligibility for the purpose of calling candidates for written test as neither the advertisement prescribes so nor any corrigendum has been issued by the respondents to show the basis for determining the merit for written examination. The whole alleged decision of the respondents is totally arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, preliminary objection has been taken that since the applicants were not in the service of the Government, they could not seek relief from the C.A.T. It is further stated that the date of submission of application forms which was initially publicized as 03.01.2015 was extended twice on administrative grounds and the last date was 13.03.2015. Under Western Command, keeping in view the vacancies under this Command, the Admit Cards were issued to about 6995 candidates, taking into account the marks in Matriculation / ITI, whichever is favourable for the candidates. This was done keeping in view letters dated 30.03.2015 and 27.02.2015 (Annexure R-1 and R-2). The criteria for shortlisting the applications in view of large number of applications was as follows:-
Less than 10 vacancy - 100 times 10 to 20 vacancy - 75 times but min 1000 20 to 50 vacancy - 50 times but min 1500 50 to 100 vacancy - 40 times but min 2500 More than 100 vacancy - 30 times but min 4000 Keeping in view the number of vacancies in the category of Mate, applicants 30 times the number of vacancies to be filled were shortlisted and called for the written test.
6. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the applicants, it has been stated that the respondents could not deny issue of Admit Cards to the applicants who possessed the prescribed qualification of Matric for the post of Mate and in this regard judgment of Apex Court in Duddilla Srinivasa Sharma & Ors. Vs. V. Chrysolite 2014 (3) RSJ 493 (S.C.) has been cited.
7. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties were heard. Learned counsel for the applicants stated that the administrative reasons for extending the cut off date for receipt of applications had not been specified by the respondents. This had resulted in more and more persons applying for being selected as Mate. The respondents had arbitrarily prescribed the cut off percentage for marks in Matric / ITI and the applicants had been denied Admit Cards to appear in the written examination. Learned counsel also referred to judgment in Duddilla Srinivasa Sharma & Ors. (supra) to press that a person who fulfills the eligibility conditions as per the Recruitment Rules cannot be excluded from appearing in the qualifying written examination by fixing higher educational bench mark.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the advertisement (Annexure A-1). He stated that Note VI in Para 11 in this advertisement reads as follows:-
Note:VI. Where the number of applications received in respect to an advertisement is large and it will not be convenient or possible for the Deptt to call for written test all the candidates, the Deptt at their discretion may restrict the number of candidates, to a reasonable, limit based on the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. In case of grading system, the candidate must furnish conversion formula duly approved by the respective Board / Institute. Since the number of candidates who applied for selection as Mate was very large the Admit Cards were issued only to those persons who were shortlisted keeping in view the decision of the authorities that applicants numbering 30 times the number of vacancies of Mate should be called for the written test. Shortlisting was done on the basis of marks in Matric / ITI (whichever was higher). He stated that 6995 persons had been called for the written test. Since it had been made adequately clear in the advertisement that shortlisting might be resorted to if the number of applications was large, there was no irregularity in the way the Admit Cards had been issued for appearing in the written test.
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. Duddilla Srinivasa Sharma & Ors. (supra) does not appear to be relevant to the matter since in that case only persons with higher educational qualification than that prescribed in the Recruitment Rules were called for the selection. The applicants in the present OA are not similarly situated. Here the shortlisting has been done on the basis of marks in Matric / ITI that are the prescribed qualifications for eligibility for Mate. In Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported (2009) 1 SC 768, Apex Court held as follows:-
Service Law- Recruitment process Panel / Select list / Reserve list / Waiting list / Merit list / Rank list Shortlisting Absence of any provision to this effect in statutory rules Held, shortlisting can be done on the basis of administrative instructions provided the action is bona fide and reasonable. Hence, we conclude that there is no merit in these OAs and the same are rejected. Copy of this order may be kept in file regarding O.A.No.060/00394/2015.
10. No costs.
(RAJWANT SANDHU) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER.
(DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Place: Chandigarh Dated: 07.09.2015 sv:
8(OA.No.060/00383/2015 & OA.No.060/00394/2015)