Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Vinod Kumar Pushkar(S.C.) vs Union Of India Through on 8 February, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No. 1134/2008
MA No.673/2008
MA No.674/2008
New Delhi, this the 8th day of February, 2011
Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A)
Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J)
1. Shri Vinod Kumar Pushkar(S.C.),
Roll No.L-3,
S/o Shri Baboo Lal,
R/o H. No.1/452, Ambedkar Colony,
Nagla Man Singh Road,
Aligarh (U.P.).
2. Shri Sanjay Kumar(S.C.),
Roll No.L-75,
S/o Shri Anokhey Lal,
R/o Nagla Man Singh Road,
Gautam Nagar Colony,
Kamal Pur Road,
P.O. Bhadesi,
District - Aligarh (U.P.).
3. Shri Pawan Kumar(S.C.),
Roll No.L-507,
S/o Shri Mahender Singh,
R/o Village & Post-Konchhod,
District-Aligarh (U.P.).
4. Shri Chhotey Lal(S.C.),
Roll No.L-2022,
S/o Shri Ram Singh,
R/o Village & Post-Konchhod,
District-Aligarh (U.P.).
5. Shri Sat Pal Singh(S.C.),
Roll No.L-672,
S/o Shri Puppu Singh,
R/o Village-Kondara,
PO-Hardwa Ganj,
District-Aligarh (U.P.).
6. Ms. Niranjan Lal (U.R.),
Roll No.L-1322,
S/o Sh. Dhani Ram,
R/o Village & P.O.-Konchhod,
District-Aligarh (U.P.). Applicants.
(By Advocate : Shri V.K. Sharma for Shri D.N. Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India Through
The Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. The Director of Printing,
Govt. of India,
B Wing,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
3. The Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Aligarh (UP).
. Respondents.
(By Advocate : Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj)
: O R D E R :
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Six Applicants have joined together and have assailed the selection made by the Respondents vide their order dated 30.03.2008 in which 39 posts of Labourer (Group D employees) were selected and have brought in the allegations of favouratism, nepotism and malafide against the official Respondents. The following relief(s) have been sought in this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1989 :-
1. That the selection made vide impugned order dt. 30.03.2008, by Respondent No.3, infested with favouritism, nepotism and in fulfillment of personal interests of the Officers of the Selection Board and of those highly-pitched departmentally. These also stand absolutely in violation of settled rules of recruitment and selections, may kindly be ordered to be set-aside by this Honble Tribunal.
2. That this Honble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the Respondents to renotify the reserved posts of Mazdoors for Ex-Serviceman and Physically Handicapped, so that proper opportunities to the other eligible candidates could be equally available for resorting to recruitment from such category of candidates.
3. That Respondent No.1 and 2, may consider constituting a Board of Officers preferably those from other stations, with a dignified Chairman in order to ensure fair and impartial selection on basis of over all merit of the candidates whose applications are already on record in reference to advertisement/sponsorship through Employment Exchange.
4. Allow any other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this case in order to safe-guard the interest of justice;
and
5. Allow Costs of this Application in favour of the jumble Applicants.
2. The factual matrix of the case, as stated by the Applicants in the OA would reveal that the Respondent No.3 notified to fill up 39 posts of Labourer in the pay scale of `2550-3200 through the direct recruitment in the Government of India Press, Aligarh (UP). The said notification appeared in the Employment News dated 10-16th November, 2007 (Annexure-A2). Alongwith the applications received through advertisement, the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange were also considered. It is stated that out of 39 posts, 20 posts were un-reserved, 12 were reserved for OBC and 7 were reserved for SC candidates. All these Applicants herein applied for the said posts. They attended the interview but they were not selected.
3. The list of candidates were finalized where it is alleged by the Applicants that grave irregularities took place and the selection was based on favouratism, nepotism and personal interest of the authorities holding higher posts in the said Government of India Press and in the Directorate of Printing. As a result, the Applicants allege that they were not selected. In support of their allegation they have enclosed an unsigned typed list (Annexure-A9) as per which the list of selected candidates disclosed the name of officers on whose pressure/request the candidates were selected. The Respondents, of course, do not accept the said list as genuine and indicate that as a fake and bogus list for which the Applicants should be put to sever test to prove the same.
4. Another issue raised by the Applicants relates to the selection of the S.C. candidates. All the Applicants being S.C., they lost out to other S.C. candidates. Therefore, they alleged that the selection of S.C. candidates should have been separately conducted but the S.C. Candidates were interviewed along with other non- S.C. candidates. The procedure adopted by the Respondents being violative of the Government instructions they served a legal notice dated 02.4.2008 on the Respondents. As the Respondents did not act on their representation, they are before this tribunal in the current OA.
5. A preliminary objection was raised to state that the OA is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. The selected candidates have not been impleaded as necessary parties. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in case of S. Jaffar Sahib Versus the Secretary, APPSE and Others [1997-1-SC-SLJ-86], and All India SC & ST Association & Others Versus A. Arthur & Others 2001-1-SC-SLJ-345]. We are in full agreement with the above contentions as, in case the OA is allowed, the selected candidates would get affected and as such the OA should not have been even admitted at the motion stage. Having issued notice to the Respondents on 30.5.2008, and finally heard the arguments of the parties. On 11.1.2011, we are deciding the case on merits.
6. Shri V.K. Sharma, appearing on behalf of Shri D.N. Sharma, the learned counsel for the Applicants contended that (i) no member of the Recruitment Board gave a certificate to the effect that none of the Members was related to the candidates and it was alleged that Shri Lal Singh a Member of the Selection Committee selected his son Rabindra Singh as Labourer in the said selection; (ii) the vacancies were not notified for the ex-servicemen and physically handicapped persons; (iii) Dr. V. Swaroop, Chief Medical Officer though included as a member of the Recruitment Board, he did not attend the Recruitment Board; (iv) the Chairman of the Board inserted the names of the candidates he was interested by deleting the names of selected candidates; (v) the Chairman of the Committee obliged the candidates informally sponsored by the Directorate of Printing and the Department Officers; and (vi) the preparation of wait listed candidates over and above the notified vacancies is violative of the Article 14 and 16 of constitution. In support of the above contentions, reliance was placed on the judgments of Honble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar and Others Versus Chairman, Banking Services Recruitment Board and Others [1996 -1 SCC-283] and State of Kerala Versus N.M. Thomas [AIR -1996 SC-490].
7. On receipt of the notice of the Tribunal, the Respondents entered appearance and have controverted in their reply affidavit dated 24.9.2008 on the grounds raised in the OA. Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the Respondents, opposing Shri Sharmas contentions submitted that the selection had been conducted in just and fair manner and no undue favour was given to any candidates. Refuting the allegations of favoritism, and nepotism, she contended that the Applicants having participated in the selection process and failed, did not have right to challenge the selection. In this context, she relied on the judgment of Honble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Balak Singh Khushwa versus State of UP [1998-3-ATC 647] and the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in University of Cochin versus N.S. Kanjoonjamma and others [1997-2-SC-SLJ-157].
8. The other contentions brought forward by countering the arguments made by the Applicant are that the method of selection was based on physical test followed by interview. The name of Dr. Vishnu Swaroop was included only as a stand by outside SC member in the absence of regular SC Member of the Recruitment Board. It was stated that both Dr. Vishnu Swaroop and Lal Singh remained absent. Refuting the charge that Shri Lal Singh being a Member of the Recruitment Board selected his son is not correct as Lal Singh, Member himself was absent.
9. It is further contended that the list circulated and enclosed by the Applicants in the OA stated to have been the selection list prepared on 2.04.2008 was far from truth. Counsel for the Respondents intimated that the paper produced as Annexure-A9 did not have signature of the Members of the Recruitment Board. As such, the said list is fake and fabricated one for which the Applicant should be fully and solely held responsible. It has been clarified by the Counsel for the Respondents that interview was held from 22nd to 24th February, 2008 and again on 28th and 30th March 2008. The final select list of Labourers was prepared only on 30.03.2008 and put on the Notice Board on 31.03.2008. Thus, we conclude that the allegation levelled by the Applicants on this score do not stand reason.
10. It is also contended that against 7 posts reserved for SC candidates 1396 candidates names were received. It was not necessary to have the selection of SC candidates separately as adequate number of SC candidates were available for selection. It was also stated that the reservation is not made for any minority groups including Muslims but there is 3% reservation for the physically handicapped but the same should be within the over all reservation available for SC/ST/OBC/UR categories. We note that the Respondents have followed the reservation policy properly. The document placed before us stands testimony for the same.
11. On our directions, the Respondents have submitted the relevant file (a bound volume) of the respondents records which at pages 149-150 include the minutes of the Selection Committee for selecting 39 candidates to fill up 39 vacancies and a Waiting List of 6 candidates to meet exigencies. This inter alia indicates that 5059 applications were received from advertisement and with 365 names sponsored by the Employment Exchange, taking the total number of candidates to 5463 including 39 eligible ex-servicemen. Out of the said 5463 applicants, 5089 candidates were found eligible and were called for interview on various dates, out of which 2953 candidates appeared in the interview. The Recruitment Board constituted 5 Members of which only 4 Members attended and one Member, namely, Shri Lal Singh, Assistant Engineer, Prasar Bharati did not attend. It is seen from the records that the main Select List includes 39 Labourers and an additional list i.e. Waiting List of 6 has been prepared. The normal practice is to maintain a waiting list in order to ensure that if any of the candidates from the Select List do not join the post the wait listed candidates can be sponsored to fill up such vacancies. Therefore, we do not find any deviation from the standard practice and the action of the Respondents in drawing a waiting list would not attract any violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
12. The Recruitment Board was chaired by the Manager of the Government of India Press, Aligarh. It is seen that there were Members like Shri A. K. Chowdhry, Assistant Manager (Administration)- a Member, Shri G. K. Sharma, Dy. Manager-Member, Shri Lal Singh S.C. Member and Dr. P. M. Naushad Ali a Member (Minority). Shri Lal Singh, remained absent. As per the main list the reservation quota meant for Scheduled Caste, OBC has been clearly earmarked. It is seen from the main list that 4 ex-servicemen have been selected and one physically handicapped person has also been selected. Number of candidates in various reserved categories have been properly selected. We find that the minutes of the Recruitment Board does not reveal any violation of the administrative process involved in the selection of the candidates. Out of total 5 Members of the Board, 4 Members have signed both the pages as on 30th March, 2008.
13. In this context, we also examined about the allegation of the Applicants that on 2.04.2008 a separate list was circulated seems to be a false and fake document produced by the Applicants. For bringing in such false documents before the Tribunal we would have imposed some cost on them but we are refraining ourselves not to impose the cost because the Applicants are already aggrieved parties by not getting selected to the post of Labourers. However, we are recording our dissatisfaction and displeasure on the casual manner the Counsel for the Applicants has verified such documents as enclosures to OA. The Counsel for the Applicants is responsible for such lapse of not verifying the correctness of such documents. Be that as it may we would not like to carry forward this issue, except to mention that the said document placed by the Applicants at Annexure-A9 is not a genuine document.
14. The main argument brought forward by the Applicants is on the favoritism, nepotism and malafide against the Respondents in as much as the Chairman of the Committee, namely Respondent No.3 and others who have influenced to bring in the candidates of their choice whereby favoritism and nepotism prevailed on them. We find from the records as well as the pleadings that only one specific case has been brought forward i.e. Mr. Lal Singh who was a Member of the Committee, his son was selected as a Labourer by the Recruitment Board. But the perusal of the records show that though Shri Lal Singh has been shown as a Member but he has been absent. As such, no malafide can be attributed to the selection of his son as Shri Lal Singh as a Member did not participate in the entire selection process.
15. Considering the total facts and circumstances of the case and our discussions within, we come to the considered conclusion that the selection made by the Respondents dated 30.03.2008 is valid and sustainable in the eyes of law. In view of the above conclusive finding, the prayers of the Applicants for (a) re-notification of the reserved vacancies, and (b) reconstitution of the Recruitment Board for the purpose of selection of Scheduled Castes, would not arise. The Applicants have miserably failed to convince us needing our intervention. The OA being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma ) (Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda )
Member (J) Member (A)
/rk/