Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Prem Singh Meena vs Cpwd on 1 October, 2021
i OA. No, 253/2014 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Original Application No. 253/2014 Order reserved on : 28.09.2021 Date of order: \....0.224 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, MEMBER (A) HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, MEMBER (3) 1. Prem Singh Meena S/o Shri Chirani Lal Meena, age about 43 years, R/o Village-Amlipura, Post-Guda Chandra Ji, Tehsil-Nadoiti, Distt. Karauli. 2. Gopal Lal Meena S/o Shri Nanga Ram Meena, age about 42 years, R/o Village-Amlipura, Post-Guda Chandra Ji, Tehsil-Nadoiti, Distt. Karauli. 3. Chhutan Lal Meena S/o Shri Kishan Lal Meena, age about 44 years R/o Village Amlipura, Post-Guda Chandra Ji, Tehsil-Nadoiti, Distt. Karauli. 4, Hukum Singh Meena S/o Shri Jag man Meena, age about 41 years, Wo Village-Amlipura, Post-Guda Chandra ji, Tehsil- Nadoiti, Distt. Karauli. .. Applicant (By Adv: Shri Raghunandan Sharma) Versus 4. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Central . Public work Department, East Block-1, Level-7, R.kK, puram, New Delhi-110066. 2, Executive Engineer (Eiectrical), Central Public Work Department, East Block-1, Level-7, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066. ho 2 0.4, No, 2533/2014 3. Superintendent Engineer (Electrical), Central Public work Departnwnt, East Block-1 , Level-7, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066. 4. Assistant Engineer Electrical Circle, Jaipur Central Electric Parinvandal, Nirman Bhawan, Sector-10, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur-302023. .... Respondents (By Adv: Shri Rajendra Vaish) Order Per: Dinesh Sharma, Member (A)
The issue involved in this Original Application is very simple and straightforward. The applicants had applied for posts of khalasi/beldar following advertisement of vacancies to fill the backlog of ST candidates in the year 2006. When they got no information about their selection/rejection, they approached us by filing an Original Application (O.A. No. 675/2012), which was disposed of with a direction, on 04/10/2012, to the respondents to decide the representation/legal notice of the applicants. The impugned "speaking order" is the decision in compliance of this direction informing that the applicant No. 1, 2 and 4 had very little chance getting appointment since they were very low in the consolidated list of merit which was prepared after conducting interviews at various circles, to avoid rush at one station. The applicant No. 3 (whose date of birth is 27/06/1971) was declared unfit in interview for beldar. There was no mo 4 Lobe eo 3 requirement of any educational qualification and the only requirements were fitness in the interview and seniority in the age for recruitment. The department had already reruited 71 khalasis and 99 beldars.
2. The applicant has questioned this "speaking order"
on ground that there is no provision in the advertisement that age would be the criteria of selection. The applicants were directed to apply in one circle and hence the merit list should have also been prepared circle wise (since they feel they wouldn't have been rejected, if it was done circle wise). It is also claimed that the applicants are more meritorious than some other named persons (not joined as parties).
3. The respondents have denied the claims of the applicant and confirmed what is stated in the impugned "speaking order". It denies that the named persons in the original Application were given appointment by their office for the post of Khallasi and Beldar. It states that there is no provision to prepare merit listcirclewise. Since there were no qualifications required for this job, other than physical fitness, the weightage given to age due to the large number of applications received, is correct and is in accordance with the government policy,
4. No rejoinder has been filed.
5. The matter was finally heard on 28.09.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the preparation of consolidated list (as against circle wise list) was wrong and the weightage given to age was contrary to what was . specified in the advertisement. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that there was nothing wrong in preparing circle wise merit list and giving priority to older candidates in the selection since they had lesser time remaining before they could be employed anywhere.
6. After going through the pleadings and hearing the arguments, we do not find any reason to intervene in this matter. The respondents have given a very reasoned reply to the applicant's questions about why they were not given any appointment orders following their applications for the jobs of khalasi and beldar advertised in the year 2006. It is very reasonable to give preference to aged amongst equally eligible persons as this is the most objective criteria for short-listing and not mentioning (of this criteria) in the advertisement cannot be the sole reason for vitiating the whole process of selection. We also agree with the contention of the respondents that they had nowhere suggested (in the advertisement at Annexure- A/2) that the selection would be based on circle-wise merit. The conduct of interviews circle-wise was only to facilitate. handling of large number of candidates, the respondents have denied having given appointments to if | axa. 255/20i4 the persons named in the Original Application (alleged by applicants to be lower in merit than the applicants) However, even if they were given appointments, not m as parties is a serious error of non-joinder of joining the d the applicant's case deserves no necessary parties, an consideration on that ground, even if found to be true. The n of the applica t for beldar at the nt No. 3 on ground of his having rejectio neen found unfi time of interview, has been challenged by that applicant on any valid ideration (this, in any ounts to clubbing of totally unconnected causes of normally not permitted in the joint filing of Original 'led above, since We have found no merit in 7, AS detail rhe applicants' claims the Original Application is dismisse™ No order as to costs.
(Hina p. shah) (Dinesh Sharnia,~ Member (J) Member (A) a lV