Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Ravichandran Natrajan Shetty vs M/O Defence on 23 April, 2019
1 OA No.200/00121/2018
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/00121/2018
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 23rd day of April, 2019
HON'BLE MR. NAVIN TANDON, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ravichandran Natrajan Shetty, S/o Late Natrajjan Shetty, DOB -
15.09.1987, R/o - Plot No - 33, Chaitaneshwar Nagar Malgi Nagar
Post Office Nagpur 40034 Maharashtra -Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri Vijay Tripathi)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence Production, South Block, New Delhi -
110001.
2. Director General, Ordinance Factory Board, 10-A, Shahid Khudi
Ram Bose Marg, Calcutta - 700001.
3. Sr. General Manager, Ordinance Factory Katni, District - Katni
- M.P - Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri N.K. Mishra)
(Date of reserving order : 12.04.2019)
ORDER
By Navin Tandon, AM.
The applicant is aggrieved that he has not been offered appointment letter for the post of Fireman by the respondent department.
Page 1 of 10 2 OA No.200/00121/2018
2. The undisputed facts of the case are as under:
2.1 The respondents issued advertisement for direct recruitment of Group B and C posts, including two posts of Fireman (1 UR, 1 SC).
2.2 The applicant, who belongs to SC category, submitted his candidature for the post of Fireman. 2.3 He appeared in the written examination held on 13.09.2015. The name of the applicant appears at Sr. No.4 of the merit list (Annexure A-3) in SC category. 2.4 The applicant was called for Physical Test on 23.11.2015 vide order dated 28.10.2015 (Annexure A-4). 2.5 He was informed under Right to Information Act on 03.11.2017 (Annexure A-1) that his name was not in the select list and, therefore, was not called for the medical examination.
3. The applicant has, therefore, sought for the following reliefs:
"RELIEF SOUGHT:
It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to:-
8.1 Summon the entire relevant record from the possession of Respondents for its kind perusal;
8.2 Upon holding that the reasons assigned in the letter dated 03.11.2017 Annexure A/1 is incorrect, command the Page 2 of 10 3 OA No.200/00121/2018 respondents to appoint the applicant as Fireman with all consequential benefits.
8.3 Any other order/orders, direction/directions may also be passed.
8.4 Award cost of the litigation to the Applicant."
4. The applicant submits that the candidates at Sr. Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the merit list (Annexure A-3), have already joined at Ordnance Factories at Khamaria and Kanpur respectively and, therefore, he should have been appointed against the post of Fireman.
5. The respondents have submitted that the provisional merit list was prepared as per Annexure R-4 in which the name of Shri Prakash Jatav is shown against the SC candidate, who was at Sr. No.1 of the merit list (Annexure A/3).
5.1 The Ordnance Factory Board, in their instructions dated 29.11.2006 (Annexure R-5), have directed that the reserve list should not be unnecessary long and in no case shall exceed the number of vacancies notified for that post/category.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
Page 3 of 10 4 OA No.200/00121/2018
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that against one post of Fireman, which was reserved for SC category, the applicant was at Sr. No.4 in the merit list. The persons at Sr. Nos.1 to 3 position of the merit list, have not joined at Ordnance Factory, Katni. Therefore, he should have been offered appointment to fill up the vacant post.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:
"1. Virender S. Hooda and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (1993) 3 SCC 696.
2. Manoj Manu and another vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 12 SCC 171.
3. Inturi Rama Rao vs. Union of India and another, (2015) 13 SCC 374.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the name of the applicant was never placed on the select list. As per instructions (Annexure R-5), the reserved list was not to exceed the number of vacancies notified for the aforesaid post. Therefore, the reserve list was restricted to top two candidates who stood on merit.
Page 4 of 10 5 OA No.200/00121/2018
10. We find that the respondents have carried out the selection as per the extant rules. For the solitary post of Fireman in SC category, the applicant was 4th in the order of merit list. The instructions for preparing the Reserve List, have been issued by the Ordnance Factory Board on 29.11.2006 (Annexure R-5), the relevant portion of which read as under:
"3. RESERVE LIST : Since publication of vacancies in Employment News is mandatory, it has been observed that number of applications against few numbers of vacancies becomes more and it becomes very difficult for Factories/units to handle the recruitment procedure. Following instructions are issued for further guidance of the Appointing Authorities :
i. Number of vacancies required to be filled in should be clearly mentioned in the advertisement, following Govt. orders.
ii. After conducting necessary interview, test etc., for selection of such candidates a SELECT LIST will be prepared which will contain names equal to the number of vacancies in each categories. iii. A separate RESERVE LIST of other persons found suitable will be made. The size of the RESERVE LIST will be decided by he chairman of the Selection/Recruitment Board or the Appointing Authority. In any case the Reserve List should not be unnecessarily long and in no case shall exceed the number of vacancies notified for that post/category. iv. However, while publishing the result of selection, factories/units should ensure that only names of selected candidates equal to the number of vacancies (SELECT LIST) are published. In case Page 5 of 10 6 OA No.200/00121/2018 some of the persons in the select list do not become available for appointment (non-joining of the candidate within the stipulated time allowed for joining the post), or where a candidate joins but he resigns or dies within a period of one year from the date of his joining, the persons on the Reserve List can be considered for appointment from the relevant category, if a fresh panel is not available by then. (Authority: DOPT O.M. No. 41019/18/97-Estt (B), dated 13th June, 2000 & OFB Circular No. 1240/Misc- PM/A/A, dated 23/12/2005).
v. The above Select List and Reserve List, both should be approved by the Sr. GM/GM or Head of the Department only. Select List will be displayed on the notice Board of the Factory, Factory Main Gate and other prominent places of the factory/units, while Reserve List will be kept at the custody of the Sr. GM/GM/HOD.
vi. On finalization of the Select List the names of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange who could not be empanelled in the Select List or who were found unsuitable will be communicated to the Local Employment Exchange for information."
11. From the above instructions, it is very clear that the name of only 1 UR+1 SC = 02 candidates should be placed in the select list as the number of vacancies were 02 (UR-1, SC-1). Accordingly, the provisional select list (Annexure R-4) has been issued by the respondents.
Page 6 of 10 7 OA No.200/00121/2018 11.1 As far as the reserved list is concerned, it has been stated that, "In any case the Reserve List should not be unnecessarily long and in case shall exceed the number of vacancies notified for that post/category". In the present case, the reserve list would also consist of UR-1 and SC-1, i.e. a total of 02 candidates. 11.2 Therefore, the select list and reserve list would be over after considering 02 UR and 02 SC candidates. Since the applicant is at merit list No.04 in the SC category, his name would not feature either in the select list or in the reserve list.
12. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, are distinguished as under:
12.1 In the matters of Virendra S. Hooda and others (supra), the State Government has issued instructions on 22.03.1957 and 26.05.1972 that when vacancies arise within six months from the receipt of the recommendations of the Public Service Commission they have to be filled up out of the waiting list maintained by the Commission.
12.1.1 In the present case, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate if any such similar instruction exist in the respondent department.
Page 7 of 10 8 OA No.200/00121/2018 12.2 In Manoj Manu and another (supra), the UPSC pleaded that, "it was the convention, followed throughout as a policy decision, that supplementary list is not to be issued except in two categories of cases, namely, "repeat" or "common" candidates.
Repeat candidates are those candidates who have participated in the same category in two LDCEs and are successful in the first examination and results had not been declared when the second departmental competitive examination was held. Common candidates are those candidates, who get selected in more than one category in LDCE." This contention of the UPSC was not found convincing by the Hon'ble Apex Court stating that the decision of UPSC in forwarding three names against requisition of DoPT for six vacancies was inappropriate.
12.2.1 In the present case, the select list and the reserve list, equal to the number of vacancies, was formed and, therefore, it is not a case that in spite of the names being there on the reserve list, the same was not forwarded.
12.3 In the matters of Inturi Rama Rao (supra), the names from the reserve list were not considered. It was observed in Para 6 that, "contentions made by the Union of India that it would be making further appointments only after amendment of the Rules, which Page 8 of 10 9 OA No.200/00121/2018 contemplated amendment we are told at the Bar, pertained mainly to the eligibility of the candidates. It is an admitted fact that amendment to the Rules as contemplated and stated before this Court in Civil Appeals Nos.6567-69 of 2010 has not been effected till date. Rather it is not in dispute that a fresh selection process has been initiated in the year 2013 on the basis of the unamended Rules and the selection process has been completed and the appointments are awaited."
12.3.1 In the present case, no such restrictions have been placed by the respondents regarding the change of the recruitment rules or eligibility criteria or any other thing.
13. In all the cases relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, facts and circumstances are entirely different from the present case. In the present case, it is undisputed that there were only two vacancies of Fireman (UR-1, SC-1). As per Para 3(iii) of the instructions (Annexure R-5), it has been categorically stated that in any case the Reserve List should not be unnecessarily long and in no case shall exceed the number of vacancies notified for that post/category. Therefore, the respondents have not committed any irregularity in declaring the select list consisting of 1-UR and 1-SC candidate and having a reserve list consisting of 1-UR and 1- Page 9 of 10 10 OA No.200/00121/2018 SC candidate. All the other candidates, who are lower down in the merit list in Unreserved or Scheduled Caste category, are not eligible to be considered for appointment. Since the applicant was placed at Sl. No.4 in the merit list of SC candidates, he is not entitled for any relief.
14. Accordingly, the O.A is dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs.
(Ramesh Singh Thakur) (Navin Tandon)
Judicial Member Administrative Member
am/-
Page 10 of 10