Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 28 January, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
OA No. 289/HR/2013 Date of decision: 28.1.2015
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) &
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A)
Gagan Sachdeva son of Shri K.S. Sachdeva, age 31 years resident of 17/C, Palam Vihar, Ambala Cantt., Haryana.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Sh. D.R. Sharma
VERSUS
1. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi through its Secretary.
2. National Research Centre on Equines, Sirsa Road, Hisar through its Director.
3. Smt. Shammi Tayagi, working as Finance and Accounts Officer with Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes, Hisar.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. R.K. Sharma
ORDER
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
The applicant is aggrieved against the action of the respondents in filling up the post of Assistant Finance and Accounts Officer in National Research Centre on Equines by bringing in respondent no.3 by transfer from Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes and he has sought a declaration that the said action be declared as bad in law. He has further sought issuance of a direction to the respondents to issue formal appointment letter to the applicant, who had already been declared successful, after positive act of selection.
2. The facts, which led to filing of the present OA, are that the National Research Centre on Equines, Hisar (for short NRCE, Hisar) issued an advertisement in the Employment News dated 21-27th May, 2011 showing their intention to fill up one unreserved post of Assistant Finance & Accounts Officer (for short, AFAO). It was provided in the advertisement that after the screening of the applications by a duly constituted committee, the shortlisted candidates were to be called for written test and interview. The applicant, who possesses Bachelor of Commerce and Master Degree in Business Management, applied for the above post. He was called for written test along with 96 other candidates and out of them only 12 candidates, including the applicant, were declared qualified and were called for interview on 15/16.02.2013. Thereafter the applicant was declared successful for the post in question and vide letter dated 19.02.2013 he was asked to complete the pre-appointment formalities by filing the necessary documentation, which he did on 01.03.2013. Surprisingly, instead of issuing the appointment letter to the applicant, pursuant to the above selection, the respondents have brought respondent no.3 Mrs. Shammi Tyagi on transfer, who is working with the Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes, Hisar (for short, CIRB, Hisar) for appointment which is illegal. Hence the present Original Application.
3. Pursuant to the notice, the respondents contested the claim of the applicant by filing a detailed written statement wherein they have taken a preliminary objection that the applicant has no right to seek direction from this Tribunal for issuance of appointment letter, as the respondents can cancel the selection process at any time. In this behalf they place reliance upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 612. It is also stated that a conscious decision has been taken by the respondents to fill up the present post by way of transfer and accordingly respondent no.3, who was working with the respondent-department and was declared surplus was appointed on deputation basis, on the said post. It is also submitted that in terms of clause-14 of the advertisement, the Director of the Institute had reserved a right to even withdraw even the appointment, if need arises and as such cancellation of selection was in order.
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder wherein, apart from contradicting the averments made by the respondents in the written statement, he has submitted that once he has already been declared successful by a duly constituted selection committee, the respondents cannot reverse their decision from issuing the appointment letter pursuant to the recommendation made by the selection committee and proceed to fill up the present post by way of transfer.
5. We have heard Shri D.R. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. Shri Sharma, learning counsel appearing for applicant vehemently argued that the action of the respondents in not issuing the appointment letter to the applicant and instead appointing respondent no.3 on transfer basis is bad in law and thus their action be declared as illegal and a direction be issued to the respondents to issue the appointment letter to the applicant. He submitted that once by a positive act of action his name has been considered and approved for appointment, then the respondents cannot reverse their decision and to appoint a person on transfer on deputation.
7. Per contra, Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and he submitted that in view of the decision taken by the Body of the respondent-Institute the matter was re-considered and it was decided to withdraw the advertisement and to appoint respondent no.3 on transfer, who had already been declared as surplus. He placed reliance upon a judgments passed in the case of State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander & Others, 1974 (1) SCR 165, Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana & Others, (1986) 4 SCC 268, Jitendra Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab and others, 1985 (1) SCR 899 and an order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Jaiveer v. Union of India & Others, OA no.603-HR-2013, decided on 18.03.2014.
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and have perused the pleadings on record with the able assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
9. The solitary contention at the hands of the applicant is that once he has been selected by a duly constituted committee then the respondents cannot withhold his appointment or withdraw the selection itself so as to bring in a person by way of transfer. The post of AFAO is to be filled 100% by promotion, failing which by deputation and direct recruitment. There is no dispute that the applicant was found suitable and his name was recommended for appointment. Pending issuance of appointment letter respondent no.3 was appointed to the said post. We have perused the record and we find that a conscious decision has been taken by the respondents for filling up the said post by way of re-deployment/transfer of surplus AFAO and in continuation thereto a noting was approved by the competent authority to appoint respondent no.3 on the said post as she was working with CIRB, Hisar, where there is no post of AFAO. Perusal of the note-sheet does not suggest that there is any act of arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of the respondents in filling up the above post by way of transfer by appointing respondent no.3. It is a settled proposition of law that a person who has been selected has no indefeasible right for appointment even though his name is included in the list of selected candidates. This was also held in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India etc. (supra) that even if vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed. Ordinarily, such advertisements merely amount to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, the Honble Apex Court cautioned that same does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. Identical view has been taken in the case of State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and Others, Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana and Others and Jitendra Kumar and Others vs. State of Punjab and others (supra). Thus, the applicant cannot be allowed to say that since he has been selected, he has a right to be appointed more so when the selection in question has been cancelled and the cancellation is for bona fide reasons. It is also not the case of the applicant that for any act of mala fide on the part of the respondents he has not been offered the appointment.
10. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the respondents for not offering appointment to the applicant. The OA is dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs.
(Uday Kumar Varma) (Sanjeev Kaushik) Member (A) Member (J) Place: Chandigarh Dated: 28.1.2015 `San. ?? ?? ?? ?? 3 OA No.289/HR/13 (Gagan Sachdeva v. ICAR & Ors.)