Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ajmer Singh vs Central Scientific Instruments ... on 14 May, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTING AT SHIMLA
O.A. No.1024/2021
Reserved on: 14.05.2025
Pronounced on: 29.05.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
Ajmer Singh, aged 30 years, S/o late Shri Pardeep Singh, Resident of
Village Harmandir, Post Office Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur
(H.P.). 'Group 'C'.
...Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Sr. Advocate along with
Mr. Parav Sharma).
VERSUS
1. Central Scientific Instruments Organisation (Council of Scientific
& Industrial Research), Sector 30C, Chandigarh-160030. Email:
[email protected].
2. Council of Scientific Industrial Research, Anusandhan Bhawan, 2,
Rafi Marg, Sansad Marg Area, New Delhi-110001. Email:
[email protected]
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. G.S. Sidhu for Mr. I.S. Sidhu).
2
ORDER
Per: HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A):
1. This O.A has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) That the impugned communication dated 17.10.2019 at A-
11 whereby an arbitrary criteria of selection for the post of Technician (1) Post Code; PLUM (Civil) has been followed for the preparation of result, may kindly be quashed and set aside.
ii) That the impugned result at Annexure A-13 notified by Respondent No.1 for the post of Technician (1) Post Code PLUM (Civil) may kindly be quashed and set aside and Respondent No.1 may kindly be prepare directed to the result afresh in accordance with the criteria of selection as notified at Annexure A-8 or Annexure at A-10.
iii) That the impugned rejection dated 15.3.2021 at Annexure A-13 whereby selection of the applicant has been rejected is liable to be quashed and set aside.
iv) That the Respondents may also be burdened with costs of the Original Application.
v) That the Respondents may kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the present Application for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
I) The Applicant matriculation in March, Senior Secondary March, 2007 from passed 2005 and Examination in H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala (Annexure A-1 and A-2 respectively). Thereafter, he passed Certificate Course of training in the trade of Plumber from the Department Technical Education, Vocational Industrial Training, Pradesh, in July, 2008 (Annexure A-3). He possesses the experience of working as Plumber with a Government Contractor, Nadaun, District Hairpur (H.P.). Vide advertisement at Annexure A-5, Central Scientific Instruments Organisation (Council of Scientific Industrial Research), Chandigarh (CSIR), Chandigarh advertised different posts of Technician 3 (1) including 2 posts of trade of Plumber as Post Code PLUM (Civil). The applicant being fully eligible and qualified for the post applied well within time as prescribed He was assigned Roll No.07526787 and was called for trade test scheduled to be held on 26.5.2019 (Annexure A6).
The applicant duly qualified the trade test.
II) As having qualified the trade test held on 26.5.2019 (Annexure A-9), the applicant was called for written test scheduled to be held on 14.9.2019 and he appeared in the written examination. Since there was no negative marking in paper-I of Mental Ability Test and there was negative marking for wrong answers in paper-II and paper-III, the applicant had made an attempt in the examination, taking due care that in the papers of negative marking, only clear answers known to him, the answer was marked, however, in the paper-I where there was no negative marking, his attempt was accordingly made. During selection process, the Council of Scientific Industrial Research, New Delhi, respondent No.2 vide its letter, dated 23.2.2019 (Annexure A-10) also issued methodology of evaluation of marks wherein for the post of Technical Assistant, three papers were to be conducted whereby Paper II and Paper-III were to be evaluated only for those candidates who marks secure (to the minimum threshold be determined by the Selection Committee) in Paper-I and the final marks list to be prepared only on the basis of marks was obtained by the candidates in Paper-II and paper-III.
III) Further, CSIR, Chandigarh declared the result of technical (I) post code PLUM (Civil) i.e. plumber trade by adopting newly coined criteria different from Annexure A8 and A10, rather in contravention with the already adopted method/criteria. The criteria adopted by the respondent CSIR Chandigarh provide that the candidate must secure 90 4 marks out of 300 in paper II & III. The applicant had qualified all the tests but for want of minimum 90 marks in Paper II & III neither the applicant is selected nor any other candidate is selected and thus the posts have remained vacant. The applicant obtained relevant records and made representation to the Respondent No.1 impugned selection against method at Annexure A-11, but the same has been rejected in arbitrary manner Annexure A-13 dated 15.3.2021. The impugned criteria/parameters adopted by Respondent No.1 at the stage of final selection at Annexure A-11, has neither ever been notified nor ever adopted or conveyed before declaration of the result at Annexure A-11 and the entire selection process already undertaken by the Respondents since the year 2019 has been rendered futile. Neither the criteria as prescribed by Respondent No.1 at Annexure A-8 has been followed nor even the criteria prescribed by the Respondent No.2, the Central Body at Annexure A-10 has been followed, rather the self contradictory method has been adopted. The same smacks of the legal malafides on the part of Respondent No.1. The criteria of selection i.e. rules of the game cannot be changed after the start of selection process, as has been done in the instant case and as such, the selection process is undertaken by Respondent No.1 preparation of at the stage of final result at Annexure A-11 deserves to be quashed and set aside, its impressionable under the law. Being impressionable under the law. IV) In the selections made for the post of PLUM (Civil) Plumber by the other organizations under CSIR including the Respondent No.2 have adopted the criteria as prescribed by the Respondent No.2 at Annexure A-10 and it is only the Respondent No.1 who has arbitrarily adopted its own criteria as carved at Annexure A-11 without any rectification. Had the selections been made as per criteria/methodology as prescribed by 5 Respondent No.2 at Annexure A-10 or as per parameters as prescribe by the Respondent No.1 itself at Annexure A-8, the applicant would have been selected. Because of the illegality and arbitrariness on the part of Respondent No.1 the Applicant has been made to suffer and to undergo selection process for long period since 2019 without any result.
3. Notice was issued to the respondents. The respondents filed a short reply on 07.04.2022 wherein it is submitted as follows:
I) The applicant appeared in the selection process at every stage thereof without objection. Hence, he should be stopped from challenging the same. The O.A. filed by applicant is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the applicant has not approached this Hon'ble Tribunal with clean hands and is misleading by concealing material facts from this Hon'ble Tribunal. The applicant has not even clearly mentioned his Roll No. in the O.A. speaks lack of bonafide on part of the applicant which implies that certain other facts presented by the applicant might also be misleading. The applicant knowingly did not bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Tribunal that Director, CSIR-CSIO, Chandigarh, is an independent appointing authority in respect of selection of Gr. Il staff in CSIR-
CSIO, Chandigarh. His power as Appointing Authority cannot be influenced by any appointment authority.
II) It is brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Tribunal that Selection Committee constituted by Director, CSIR-CSIO, Chandigarh is 'Independent Selection Committee' and its recommendations are not influenced by any other Independent Selection Committee constituted by different Appointing Authority. There is nothing mentioned in the Recruitment Rules that stops the Selection Committee for prescribing minimum threshold marks for any post 6 based on the requirements of the concerned laboratory of CSIR. The applicant knowingly did not bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Tribunal that the representation made by the applicant was rejected on the basis of the reply received from CSIR, New Delhi vide Letter No. 5-1(711)/2020-PD (copy enclosed) which stated that the decision of the Selection Committee shall be final to determine the eligibility of a candidate for the post. The respondents prayed that the present OA is liable to be rejected on the grounds that the applicant not only concealed but also misrepresented facts of this matter.
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder wherein the applicant reiterates the contents of the O.A submitting that:
I) The pattern of examination at ANNEXURE A-8 is to hold the field for conducting the selection test, but the respondents have arbitrarily changed the same at the final stage of selection i.e. while preparing the result at Annexure A-11 on 17.10.2019 which is contrary to law.
The Rules of the Game cannot be changed after the commencement of the same as has illegally been done in the instant case ignoring the criteria prescribed for selections at Annexure A-8 by superseding the same with the newly coined method when the final result was prepared on 17.10.2019 at Annexure A-11 which has caused substantial injustice to the applicant. It is pin pointed that initially when the selection process was initiated for the post in question, the criteria prescribed was that there will be no negative marking in paper I and there will be negative marking in paper no II and III. As such the applicant and other candidates appearing in the test had accordingly made the attempt. As per criteria at Annexure A-8, there were minimum threshold marks prescribed for qualifying the Paper 7 TEL, where there were no threshold marks for Paper II and III and there was also negative marking in the said Paper no I & III. Accordingly the petitioner and the other candidates didn't go for answering the questions in Paper no. II and III in which the answer were not certain to them as there was negative marking and there were no threshold mark in the said papers. Now the applicant and other candidates who have qualified paper I, the respondents while preparing the result at Annexure A-11 and A-12 on 17.10.19 arbitrarily prescribed for threshold marks in Paper II and III as 90 marks out of 300 for unreserved category candidates and as the result none of the candidates has been held to be qualified against unreserved category posts causing substantial injustice to the applicant. It is not open for the Respondents to fix threshold marks for paper II and III at the time of final stage of selection. The respondents have acted in a highly illegal and arbitrary manner.
5. Heard both the counsels and have read the averments and pleadings made in the present OA and have perused the documents placed on record.
6. The applicant as well as the respondents have had submitted the following judgments in support of their arguments.
i) Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2634 of 2013, with Civil Appeal No.2635 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No.2636 of 2013.
ii) State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors., reported in 1973 AIR 2216.
7. At Annexure A-8, dated 03.07.2019, vide which the scheme of examination of written test for the eligible candidates was stated as follows:- 8
Recruitment of Technician (1) (Advt. No.04/2017) Mode of Examination OMR based or Computer Based Objective Type Multiple Choice Examination.
Medium of Questions The questions will be set both in English and Hindi except the questions on English Language.
Standard of Exam SSC + ITI/XIIth Standard
Total No. of Questions 150
Total Time Allowed 2 hours 30 minutes
Paper I (Time Allowed -1 hours)
Subject No. of Questions Maximum marks Negative Marks
Mental Ability 50 100 There will be no
Test negative marks in
(two marks for
this paper.
every correct
answer)
Mental Ability Test will be so devised so as to include General Intelligence, Quantitative Aptitude, Reasoning, Problem Solving, Situational Judgment, etc. Paper-II (Time Allowed - 30 minutes) Subject No. of Questions Maximum marks Negative Marks General 25 75 One negative Awareness mark for every (three marks for wrong answer every correct answer) English Language 25 75 One negative mark for every (Three marks for wrong answer.
every correct
answer)
Paper-III (Time Allowed-1 hours)
Subject No. of Questions Maximum marks Negative Marks
Concerned Sub 50 150 One negative
ject mark for every
(three marks for
wrong answer.
every correct
answer)
9
Thereafter, vide web notice advertisement No.04/2017, dated 17.10.2019 (Annexure A11), by declaring the result of the same written test which was held on 14.09.2019 for recruitment to the post of Technician-I, the criteria adopted for declaring the result was indicated as follows:-
"In continuation to web notification of even no. dated 13.08.2019, the result of Paper-I of Written Test held on 14.09.2019 is attached as Annexure-I for information of all candidates:-
The Selection Committee fixed the minimum threshold marks in Paper- 1 (for evaluation of Paper-II & Paper-III) as 30 marks for Unreserved (UR) posts and 25 marks for the posts reserved for OBCs/SCs. On the basis of thebe minimum threshold marks, the result of Paper-II & Paper-III is attached as Annexure-II.
Further, the candidates securing minimum 90 marks out of 300 for Unreserved (UR) posts and 75 marks out of 300 for the posts reserved for OBCS/SCs in Paper-II & Paper-III have been considered for merit for selection to the above mentioned post. Accordingly, the list of candidates recommended for selection and waitlist, in the order of merit of Paper-II & Paper-III, is attached as Annexure-III. Waitlist panel will operate in the event of occurrence of a vacancy caused by non-joining of the candidate or where a candidate joins but he resigns or dies within a period of one year from the date of joining. These results are subject to all concerned candidates fulfilling the minimum eligibility criteria as mentioned in advertisement no. 04/2017."
Vide Annexure A12, the applicant had scored 83.00 marks in Paper II & III and he was declared unsuccessful basically.
The relief sought by the applicant is strictly based on presumptions questioning the criteria fixed by the Committee. It is observed that the criteria adopted by the Committee by declaring the result was made for all the candidates who had appeared in the exam. The applicant was part of the process of this written test held and the evaluation made.
8. The contention of the respondents in their written statement rightly points out that there is nothing in the guidelines to prevent the selection committee from determining a threshold marks in Paper II and Paper III as well. The respondents have appended the clarification sought relief to evaluation for the post of Technician for recruitment that states:- 10
"Subject: Clarification relating to evaluation for the post of Technician (1) Group II for recruitment-reg. ........With reference to your above referred communications dated 05.02.2020 and 16.03.2020, I am directed to intimate that the instructions/guidelines issued by the CSIR only provides the requirement for fixing a threshold marks in Paper I which is qualifying in nature. Qualifying Paper-1 only entitles evaluation of Paper-II and Paper III, it does not determine the eligibility of the candidate for the post Paper-II and Paper III are evaluated to determine the inter-se merit of the candidates. However, there is nothing in the guidelines to prevent the Selection Committee from determining a threshold marks in Paper II and Paper III as well. Therefore, the decision of the Selection Committee shall be the final to determine the eligibility of a candidate for the post and it's wisdom cannot be challenged as long as it does not violate the basic principles of the rules and guidelines in force.
In view of the above facts, the action taken by the Selection Committee is in order."
The perusal of the above documents gives no ground to question the competence of selection committee to fix the criteria. Further, the applicant had participated in the whole selection process and now in the result has been declared on the basis of some cut off criteria fixed by the selection committee cannot be challenged on surmises and suppositions. The examination was conducted entirely in accordance with the scheme of examination advertised vide Annexure A-8, dated 03.07.2019.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the OA filed in this case is devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sv/