Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Sajith Pb vs Union Of India on 26 November, 2015
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 180/00189/2014
Thursday this the 26th day of November, 2015
CORAM
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mrs. P. Gopinath, Administrative Member
Sajith PB, aged 27 years
S/o P.V.Babu
residing at Block No.IV, B2 National Institutive of
Fisheries Post Harvest Technology & Training (NIFPHTT)
Staff Quarters, Pullepady, Kochi-682018.
. . . . Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. T.C.Govindaswamy)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government
of India, Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Animal
Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries), New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director, National Institute of Fisheries Post Harvest
Technology & Training (NIFPHTT), PB No. 1801, Kochi-682016.
3. Shri Sovimon V, Processing Worker
National Institute of Fisheries Post Harvest
Technology & Training (NIFPHTT), PB No. 1801, Kochi-682016.
4. Shri Vipin K.S. Processing Worker,
National Institute of Fisheries Post Harvest
Technology & Training (NIFPHTT), PB No. 1801, Kochi-682016.
5. Shri P.K.Rajesh, Processing Worker
National Institute of Fisheries Post Harvest
Technology & Training (NIFPHTT), PB No. 1801, Kochi-682016.
6. Smt. Seena O.S, Processing Worker
National Institute of Fisheries Post Harvest
Technology & Training (NIFPHTT), PB No. 1801, Kochi-682016.
. . . . Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. N. Anil Kumar, Sr.Panel Central Govt. Counsel for R.1&2
Advocate Mr. Unnikrishna Kaimal for R. 3&5
Advocate Mr. MA Shafik for R4)
This application having been finally heard on 18.11.2015, the
Tribunal on 26 .11.2015 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member This application has been filed by one of the candidates, who was not selected for the post of Fish Processing Worker, challenging the selection and appointment of Respondents 3 to 6 covered by Annexures A1 to A4. Annexure A5 is the notification dated 16.11.2012 as per which applications were invited for appointment to the post of Processing Worker Gr.III. Annexure A6 letter was issued to the applicant directing him to appear for test and interview. No test was conducted. But only an interview was held. The applicant was under the impression that the test would be conducted in the course of time. Annexure A7 experience certificate was produced by him. The applicant later came to understand that certain persons were appointed to the post of Processing Worker. Information was obtained under the RTI Act vide Annexure A8 as per which the applicant came to know that Respondents 3 to 6 were selected and appointed. Annexure A9 series were the certificates produced by respondents 3 to 6. They did not have the requisite experience. Those certificates should not have been acted upon by the selection committee. Thus the applicant contends that Annexures A1 to A4 orders of appointment issued to Respondents 3 to 6 are illegal and are hence liable to be set aside and seeks a direction to respondents 1&2 to publish a fresh list of selected candidates eliminating Respondents 3 to 6 and to select the applicant and issue consequential orders.
2. The respondents 1&2 resisted the application contending as follows.
As per the existing recruitment rule, for the post of Processing Workers, the method of recruitment is by direct recruitment. The age limit is 18-28 years (5 years age relaxation for SC/ST an 3 years for OBC).The candidate should be literate and should be able to read and write and he/she must be having 5 years experience in processing fish and prawn in fish processing plant. Accordingly Annexure A5 notification was issued to fill up four vacancies of Fish Processing Workers. 60 candidates including the applicant applied for the post. A committee was constituted for screening and scrutinizing the applications received and recommended the eligible candidates for the test/interview. The committee scrutinized all applications meticulously and recommended 27 candidates for interview who possessed the required qualification and experience as per the documents produced by them. Accordingly, call letters were issued to all the 27 candidates for attending the test/interview. The applicant was one among the short-listed candidates. Selection committee was constituted by the Director NIFPHATT for conducting the interview to fill the four posts. Interview was held on 10.7.2013. On the basis of the performance of the candidates in the interview, the committee recommended respondents 3 to 6 for selection against the 4 vacancies of Processing Workers. On the basis of the recommendations of the selection committee, offer of appointment was issued to them. Subsequently they were appointed. Their appointment was purely on merit, based on the marks obtained by them in the interview. The applicant was unable to acquire any of the four positions on the basis of his performance in the interview. The contention that the certificate produced by the 3rd respondent was not acceptable is denied. The contention that Respondents 3 to 6 were not qualified to be selected is also not correct. They had the prescribed qualification and experience as specified in the Recruitment Rules.
3. The respondents 3 to 6 have not filed reply in this OA. They had already submitted their reply statement in the earlier OA 977/2013. Copy of the order in OA 977/2013 has been produced to adopt the reply statement filed by them in those cases.
4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether Annexures A1 to A4 appointment orders issued to Respondents 3 to 6 are liable to be set aside and whether the respondents 1&2 should be directed to prepare a fresh selection list as contended by the applicant.?
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and have gone through the documents and annexures produced.
6. Respondents 3 to 6 are facing another round of litigation. Earlier against the very same selection OA 977/13 was filed by one K.N. Shini. That was dismissed by this Tribunal, after hearing both sides, as per order dated 23.6.2015.
7. Annexure A5 is the notification dated 16.11.2012 as per which applications were invited to fill up the 4 posts of Processing Workers Gr.III. Those posts were unreserved. All the 4 posts were under the category of unreserved (UR). Essential qualification was matriculation or equivalent and also 5 years experience in processing of fish and prone in fish processing plants. Age limit was 18-28 years, with 5 years relaxation of age for SC/ST and 3 years relaxation for OBC candidates. There is no dispute regarding the educational qualification of any of the respondents. 8.
The main challenge is regarding Annexure A9 series, the experience certificates produced by the respondents. It is not disputed that 60 candidates had applied for the post including the applicant. It is also not in dispute that a committee was constituted for screening and scrutinizing the applications received. That committee consisted of Deputy Director (Processing & Marketing) as Chairman and the Processing Technologist, Accounts Officer, Marketing Officer and Processing Technologist, NIFPHTT Vizag Unit as members. There was no complaint against any of the Members of the committee. No malafide has been attributed against those officers. It is contended by the Respondents that the committee scrutinized the applications meticulously and recommended 27 candidates including the applicant for interview. All those persons, according to Respondents, had the requisite qualification and experience as per Annexure A5. The fact that all those 27 candidates were issued call letters for attending the test/interview for selection to the post of Processing Workers was also not disputed. The interview was scheduled to be held on 10.7.2013. It is not disputed that the applicant also attended the interview.
8. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the call letter showed that there was test and interview. But no test was conducted. In fact there is no case for the parties that any test was conducted. The contention that the applicant was under the impression that the test would be conducted after the interview is too hard to be digested. If any test is to be conducted that would only precede the interview. It is not the practice of conducting test after the interview is over. In fact no test was required considering the nature of the appointment to the post of Fish Processing Worker. The important criteria was regarding experience the candidates had in the relevant field. The respondents would contend that a selection committee was constituted to fill up the 4 vacancies of Processing Workers Gr.III. That committee consisted of Shri Jai Singh Meena, Deputy Director as Chairman, Dr. M.K.Venu PT, Shri PV Ravindran Nair, Accounts Officer, Shri Varghese John, Marketing Officer and Shri K.K.Mohammed Basheer, PT (processing Technologist) as Members and Shri G.D.Rajeev, Assistant General Manager, Matsyafed as External Member. No plea questioning the integrity, impartiality or efficiency of any of these Members was raised. In other words, though it was stated that the interview was held arbitrarily without considering the certificates etc. no malafide could be attributed against any of these members.
9. According to the respondents on the basis of the performance of the candidates in the interview Respondents 3 to 6 were selected for the four posts of Processing Workers. Gr.III. The respondents would vehemently contended that the selection was conducted purely on merit and not on any extraneous considerations. Simply because the applicant had the educational qualification and experience it cannot be said that applicant had to be selected when altogether 27 candidates were called for the interview. The fact that the applicant had acquired BA degree is not a reason to hold that he should have been selected as Processing Worker. It depends upon his performance in the interview. It is not for the Tribunal to sit in judgment over the nature of the interview conducted or the selection process done by the respondents and to have another interview here. It is also important to note that applicant had participated in the selection process without demur and has now come to question the correctness and legality of the selection after several months. The OA was filed on 14.3.2014. The interview was conducted on 10.7.2013.
10. It is well settled law that a candidate who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein is not entitled to question the same. Here, the applicant appeared for the interview and participated therein. Only because the result of the interview was not palatable to him, he cannot question the process of interview as unfair and there was some lacuna in the process. See the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pitta NaveenKumar Vs. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti - (2006) 10 SCC 261, Munindra Kumar Vs. Rajiv Govil - (1991) 3 SCC 368, Rashmi Mishra Vs. M.P.Public Service Commission - (1006) 12 SCC 724, Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla - 1986 SCC (L&S) 644 and Union of India and others Vs. S.Vinod Kumar and others - (2007) 8 SCC 100. Same is the view taken by the Supreme Court in Vijendre Kumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and others - (2011) 1 SCC 150.
11. The decision in Vijendra Kumar cited supra has also been relied upon by the respondents in support of their submission that as the list of successful candidates was published in the notice board, it is clear that the knowledge of the same is to be imputed to such candidates. The candidates including the applicant knew the requirement of selection process. The applicant was aware of the fact that all the candidates participated in the interview and as such the contention belatedly advanced by the applicant regarding the so called irregularity cannot be entertained at all.
12. Though respondents 3 to 6 contended that in view of the dismissal of OA 977/2013 the very same selection process which was challenged in that case cannot be challenged in this case, that submission is found unacceptable. Though so many other contentions, including the contention in this case also might have been taken in that case, ultimately that case was disposed of on the ground that the 4 posts advertised do not come under OBC category but the applicant therein claimed appointment on the premise that one post is reserved for OBC. No definite finding has been entered in OA 977/2013 regarding the other contention raised by the applicant in that case. Therefore, the order in OA 977/2013 cannot be made use of by the respondents to contend that this OA is not maintainable.
13. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the certificates relied upon by the screening committee/selection committee were invalid or were obtained by fraud, from the authorities concerned. Annexure.A9 shows the list of candidates who attended the interview. Sl.No.2 Rajesh PK is the 5 th respondent. He had acquired educational qualification SSLC and had worked as Fish Processing Worker at Manassery Fisherman Development Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd as mentioned in the last column of A9. The period during which he had worked was not stated. But the certificate produced by him shows that he had 5 years experience as required.
14. Sl.No.8 Seena OS is the 6th respondent. She had experience at Rabia Seafoods, Palluruthy, Ernakualm from 8/2006 to 3/2008 and Abad Fisheries Pvt Ltd. Mumambam from 5/2008 onwards till date. Thus according to the respondents she also had the required qualification.
15. The third respondent Sovi Mon V appears at Sl.No.9 who had passed B.Sc Zoology. He had worked as PQAS at NIFPHTT for 5 years from 27.9.2007 to 8.11.2012. The certificate was issued by Manasery Fisherman Welfare Cooperative Soceity. It was stated that he was working as PQAS at NIFPHATT on contract basis. Applicant is shown as Sl.No.12. He also had worked as Processing Worker at Premier Marine Foods from 2.8.2007 to 2.10.2012.
16. The 4th respondent Vipin KS is Shown as Sl.No.17. Besides, educational qualification of SSLC he had experience at IFP Kochi from 30.10.2006 to 29.10.2007 and as Processing Worker at Manassery Fisherman Development Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd. and as Skilled Processing Worker from 1.7.2009 till date. Thus the screening committee and interview board found Respondent No.4 also as a qualified person to be selected for the post.
17. The learned for Respondents would submit that since the certificate produced by the respondents 3 to 6 before the screening committee and interview board had been meticulously examined and since the certificates were found to be proof of the experience acquired by them it is not for the Tribunal to probe into the issue as to whether the certificates were issued by competent authority or whether they are forged etc. Simply because a contention has been raised by the applicant that those certificates were not correct, the Tribunal will not be justified in probing further into the matter as if the Tribunal is conducting criminal investigation as to whether those certificates are forged or not. The Recruitment Rule or the notification does not say that the certificate should be issued by any particular institute/society/organization. The reply obtained by applicant based on the application submitted under the RTI Act has been pressed into service to contend that though the certificates were issued by the Society, the required particulars were not issued by the Society stating that the money was not paid from the society but from NIFPHTT. Much has been argued contending that the certificates were obtained by fraudulent means and those certificates were erroneously accepted by the Screening committee/Selection Committee as the case may be. As has been stated earlier the Screening Committee consisted of Chairman and other officers. Their integrity or impartiality has not been question at all. Similar is the case with regard to the Selection committee which was headed by the Deputy Director, NIFPHTT as Chairman with five other responsible officers. Against those officers also no allegation has been made.
18. Annexure A9 select list shows the entires in respect of all the persons who attended the interview. There is nothing to show that the select list prepared by the committee is illegal, arbitrary or is tainted by malafides. No malafide has been attributed against the action taken by the two committees. The leaned counsel for the respondents would contend that the function of the Tribunal is not to conduct investigation into the correctness or otherwise of the certificates when on the face of those certificates, it is clear that the candidates obtained the same on the ground that they had experience from those institutes/societies. Questions were asked under RTI Act to furnish particulars of payment of wages. Pointing out the inconsistencies it is argued that Respondents 3 to 6 had not worked there at all. Respondents 1&2 have stated that Manassery Fishermen Development Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd issued experience certificate to the 4th respondent showing that he has been working as Skilled Processing Worker from 7.1.2008 to 31.3.2009 and certificate dated 14.12.2012 showing that he has been working as Skilled Processing Worker under National Agricultural Innovation Project at NIFPHATT [Annexures R1(a) and (b)] and that wages for the workers were given to the Cooperative Society mentioned above and the society disbursed the amount to the individual workers. NIFPHATT does not interfere with the affairs of the society in disbursement to contractual workers. Therefore, it is clear that the NIFPHAT used to pay the amount to the Society and the Society used to disburse to individual workers. Therefore the money did actually drawn from the Society is not a reason to say that Respondent No. 4 and other workers did not work in that society. It was stated that to Respondents 3 & 5 also such experience certificates were given since Nov 2007 on daily wages of Rs. 200/- per day. It was further clarified that the wages to the workers were at first given by the NIFPHATT to the Society by cheque and the Society used to pay the amount to the individual workers. It as further pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the reply was furnished by Respondent No.2 in response to the information sought by the General Secretary, NIFPHATTEA under RTI is based on the records such as VHSC Apprenticeship Certificate of Manassery Fisherman Development Cooperative Society Ltd., sponsorship from District Employment Exchange etc. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that all the certificates produced by Respondents 3 to 6 were fraudulently created is found to be travesty of truth.
19. The screening committee had no difficulty to find those candidates as qualified and had the required experience to be selected. There is nothing to show that any of those members had any interest in respondents 3 to 6 or that the committee members had shown favouritism or nepotism in the matter. Only because the applicant could not succeed in the selection, he has come forward with the allegations that Respondents 3 to 6 had no sufficient experience to be selected as Fish Processing Worker. It is clear that the recruitment process for the post of Processing Worker was done strictly following the rules and procedures in force. We could not find anything illegal in the committee's decision that Respondents 3 to 6 had the prescribed qualification and experience. Based on their performance in the interview they were selected. There is nothing illegal in it. We find no merit in this OA. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(P.Gopinath) (N.K.Balakrishnan) Administrative Member Judicial Member kspps