Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Union Of India vs Fathahudheen M on 12 September, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Review Application No. 35 of 2012
And
Review Application No. 48 of 2012
in
Original Application No. 460 of 2011
Wednesday, this the 12th day of September, 2012
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R. Raman, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member
1. Review Application No. 35 of 2012 -
1. Union of India,
represented by the Administrator,
Union Territory of Lakshadweep,
Kavaratti-682 555.
2. The Director of Education,
Union Territory of Lakshadweep,
Kavaratti.
3. The Director of Social Welfare & Tribal Affairs,
Union Territory of Lakshadweep,
Kavaratti, Commissioner of Disability,
Kavaratti-682 555. ..... Review
Applicants
(By Advocate - Mr. S. Radhakrishnan)
V e r s u s
1. Fathahudheen M., aged 36 years,
S/o. V.K. Abubacker Koya,
Makashi House, Agatti Island,
UTL, Earlier working as Post Graduate Teacher,
On contract basis at Govt. Senior Secondary School,
Kilthan.
2. Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities,
Sarojini House, Bhagawan Das Road,
New Delhi. ..... Respondents
(By Advocate - Mr. M.P. Krishnan Nair)
2. Review Application No. 48 of 2012 -
Fathahudheen M., aged 36 years,
S/o. V.K. Abubacker Koya,
Makashi House, Agati Island,
Union Territory of Lakshadweep,
Earlier working as Post Graduate Teacher,
On contract basis at Govt. Senior Secondary School,
Kiltan. ..... Review
Applicant
(By Advocate - Mr. M.P. Krishnan Nair)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India,
Rep. by Administrator,
Union Territory of Lakshadweep,
Kavaratti-682 555.
2. The Director of Education,
Union Territory of Lakshadweep,
Kavaratti - 682 555.
3. The Director of Social Welfare & Tribal Affairs,
Union Territory of Lakshadweep,
Kavaratti, Commissioner of Disability,
Kavaratti-682 555.
2. Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities,
Sarojini House, Bhagawan Das Road,
New Delhi, Pin Code-. ..... Respondents
(By Advocate - Mr. S. Radhakrishnan)
The Review Application No. 35/2012 having been heard on 21.08.2012
and the Review Application No. 48/2012 having been heard on 3.9.2012, the
Tribunal on 12.09.2012 delivered the following common order:
O R D E R
By Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member-
The review applicants in RA No. 35/2012 are respondents Nos. 1-3 in OA No. 460 of 2011. The review applicant in RA No. 48/2012 is the applicant in the same OA, which was disposed of as under:-
"7. From the facts of the case it emerges that the applicant though a disabled person had applied for the post of PGT (History) in the general category. In the notification for the post of PGT (History) along with other PGT posts there was no quota reserved for the disabled. In the absence of reservation for the disabled in the notification dated 31.1.2009 inviting applications for filling up the post of PGTs, the applicant has no ground to claim that his disability should be considered for selection. As and when notification is issued giving equal opportunity to all disabled persons to participate in the selection, the case of the applicant can also be considered if he applies for the post notified in the category of disabled. In a general selection the applicant cannot have personal reservation on the ground of his disability. Having stated this we would observe that it is the duty of the respondents to make earnest efforts to identify posts for the disabled and fill them up so that qualified disabled persons are enabled to live a dignified life as per various orders of the Government of India and the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
8. The applicant has responded to the notification dated 31.1.2009 inviting application for the post of PGT History for Senior Secondary School in the General quota. He was not considered by the Department for the reason that he did not have the requisite qualification as per the recruitment rule i.e. BEd. or equivalent degree in the same subject as Master's degree. The applicant contended that one Mr. Sadakathulla Khan M.M though similarly situated as himself was selected as PGT Teacher, Geography. As per Annexure A3 notification F. No. 18/3/2009, dated 31.1.2009 the educational qualifications for the post of PGT Teachers is Masters degree in the subjects concerned and degree or recognized diploma in education. The notification does not state that the Masters Degree and the Degree in Education should be in the same subject. The respondents have not responded to these contentions. If the notification dated 31.1.2009 was in accordance with the old recruitment rules the new recruitment rules insisting on BEd. in the same subject as Masters degree is not applicable. Therefore, the non-consideration of the applicant for the post of PGT (History) for which selection process was initiated is illegal. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the respondents should consider the case of the applicant for appointment as PGT as per the notification dated 31.1.2009 and give him appointment if he is found fit. If no post is available to accommodate him if found fit, he should be adjusted against a post that will be available in future. Ordered accordingly."
2. The review applicants in RA No. 35/2012 sought review of the order in the aforesaid OA on the following grounds:-
Without a specific prayer to that effect this Tribunal directed the respondents to appoint the applicant in the OA for a vacancy to be notified in future. Selection in accordance with Annexure A3 notification in the aforesaid OA was completed in 2009 itself by appointing the selected candidates to the notified vacancies. The respondents cannot be directed to appoint the applicant in the OA in the next arising vacancy. The respondents had clarified during the course of hearing that Mr. Sadakathulla Khan M.M. had obtained his BA and MA degrees in Geography and his B.Ed. was in Social Science pertaining to Geography. Therefore, Annexure R1 order passed by this Tribunal is liable to be reviewed.
3. The review respondent No. 1 in his reply statement submitted that prayer (d) of the OA No. 460 of 2011 was to declare that the applicant is entitled to be appointed in the Education Department of Lakshadweep Administration as P.G. Teacher in History against reserved quota for handicapped as also under general quota.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in both the Review Applications and perused the records. We have carefully considered the submissions of the contesting parties. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record, in that the applicant was not considered in accordance with Annexure A3 notification F. No. 18/3/2009, dated 31.1.2009. But there was no specific prayer to appoint the applicant in a vacancy to be notified in future. It also transpired that Mr. Sadakathulla Khan M.M. is not similarly situated as that of the applicant as the former had degree and post graduation in Geography and his B.Ed. was in Social Science pertaining to Geography. The above errors are liable to be rectified by substituting paragraph 8 as under:-
"8. The applicant had responded to the notification dated 31.1.2009 inviting application for the post of PGT History for Senior Secondary School in the General quota. He was not considered by the Department for the reason that he did not have the requisite qualification as per the recruitment rule i.e. BEd. or equivalent degree in the same subject as Master's degree. As per Annexure A3 notification F. No. 18/3/2009, dated 31.1.2009 the educational qualifications for the post of PGT Teachers is Masters degree in the subjects concerned and degree or recognized diploma in education. The notification does not state that the Masters Degree and the Degree in Education should be in the same subject. If the notification dated 31.1.2009 was in accordance with the old recruitment rules the new recruitment rules insisting on BEd. in the same subject as Masters degree is not applicable. Therefore, the non-
consideration of the applicant for the post of PGT (History) for which selection process was initiated is illegal. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the respondents should consider the case of the applicant for appointment as PGT as per the notification dated 31.1.2009 and if he is coming up within the rank list to the extent of vacancies notified, take further action as per law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly."
5. As regards RA No. 48/2012, we do not find sufficient grounds for reviewing the order of this Tribunal dated 15.5.2012 in OA No. 460 of 2011 which is already reviewed as above in RA No. 35/2012.
6. In the result RA No. 35 of 2012 is disposed of as above and RA No. 48/2012 is dismissed.
(K. GEORGE JOSEPH) (JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER "SA"