Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Sunil Bhaskaran vs Union Of India Through on 11 November, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA 3549/2010
New Delhi this the 11th day of November, 2010.
Honble Mr. Justice V.K.Bali, Chairman
Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A)
Shri Sunil Bhaskaran,
S/o Shri V.M.Bhaskaran,
AD-HOC Assistant Professor,
Working under:
Commandant,
Army Cadet College Wing,
Indian Military Academy,
Dehradun. Applicant
(By Advocate Ms. Meenu Mainee )
VERSUS
Union of India through:
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Government of India, South Block,
New Delhi.
2. The Director General of Military Training,
General Staff Branch,
Army Headquarters, DHQ P.O., New Delhi.
3. The Secretary,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
4. The Commandant,
Indian Military Academy,
Dehradun. Respondents
O R D E R
Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A):
The Applicant is aggrieved by the fact that he has not been called for the interview for the post of Assistant Professor on the ground that he had not done his M. Phil before 31.12.1993.
2. The Applicant has stated that he has been working as Assistant Professor (Computer Science) in the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun on ad hoc basis for the past 11 years. The Applicant obtained his M. Phil degree in the year 2008. The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), the third Respondent herein, issued an advertisement in the Employment News for the period 13-19 February 2010 for the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science). One of the conditions for the candidates is that they should have obtained the qualification of M. Phil before 31.12.1993. This condition for the selection for the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science) in the advertisement has been challenged as arbitrary, irrational and illogical.
3. The facts as stated in the Application reveal that the applicant is working as Assistant Professor in Computer Sciences in the Indian Military Academy, Dehradun on ad hoc basis for the last 11 years. He acquired his M.Phil qualification in 2008. He along with others filed OA No.2386/2004 before the Tribunal praying for direction to the respondents to regularise his services. Vide order dated 30.9.2005 the said OA was disposed of with direction to the respondents that the applicant would continue as such till regular appointees by UPSC were to be selected. It was also held that the applicant would also become a candidate for the post of Assistant Professor and his case would be considered along with others by relaxation of his age to the extent of services rendered by him in the institution, and further that the services rendered by him would be taken into consideration. The judgment passed by this Tribunal has since been challenged before the High Court in a writ petition, which is pending, and it is stated that for the reason that the said writ is pending, the order of the Tribunal has not been implemented. In August, 2009, University Grants Commission issued a notification laying down that a period of two years shall be allowed to ad hoc teachers who have not cleared the NET examination, to clear the same within that period and till such time the colleges and universities shall not make appointments on such posts occupied by such teachers on regular basis. UPSC issued advertisement in Employment News dated 13-19.2.2010 inviting applications to fill up the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Sciences, the post presently occupied by the applicant. The applicant submitted his application for the said post to UPSC in response to the said advertisement on 18.2.2010, but did not get any information, and in fact, learnt that UPSC had not found him eligible on the ground that he did not acquire his M.Phil qualification before 31.12.1993, but acquired the same in 2008. On 25.2.2010 the applicant submitted representation to Secretary, Ministry of Defence, stating that the pre-condition of having passed the M.Phil examination before 31.12.1993 would be impracticable, and that the eligibility condition prescribed in the advertisement was self-contradictory and inconsistent since it was not in accordance with the University Grants Commission notification. He also pointed out that for the post of Assistant Professor in the Jawaharlal Nehru Rajkiya Mahavidyalaya, Port Blair in the same level, no such pre-condition was laid down. On the grounds as mentioned above and others, he prayed that the advertisement issued by UPSC may be modified and he be allowed to appear in the selection for the said post. The applicant received no reply.
4. This Application was listed for motion hearing on 26.10.2010 when the learned counsel representing the applicant sought adjournment. On the adjourned date, i.e., 1.11.2010, when the learned counsel was asked as to whether pursuant to the advertisement referred to above the process of selection by holding interviews was over or still going on, she fairly stated that the date for interviews was 26.10.2010.
5. What clearly appears from the facts as mentioned above is that even though, the applicant knew that as per the advertisement he would not be eligible and had made representation for consideration of his case on 25.2.2010 and got no reply whatsoever, yet he chose to file the present Application, which was listed on a date when the interviews were to he held. The counsel, of her own, sought adjournment, which was granted. The process of selection by holding interviews is over and, may be, only the result has to be declared.
6. In the facts as mentioned above, we find no occasion whatsoever to interfere by only dealing with the academic issues as have been raised in the present OA. Once, the interviews have already been held and only result thereof is to be declared, it would be difficult to grant any meaningful relief to the applicant. In cases of the kind in hand, grievances have to be ventilated at a proper time. Surely, if the applicant would have come before us before the date of interview and if the Tribunal had found prima facie merit in the contention raised by his counsel, an interim order for provisional interview of the applicant could have been issued. This would be neither practical nor permissible at this stage. Assuming that the requirement of acquiring qualification before a particular date is held to be against law, it would still not be possible to issue directions to grant any meaningful relief to the applicant. No court or tribunal will deal with academic issues if no relief can be granted. Leaving the applicant to ventilate his grievance if there may be yet another advertisement for selection and appointment for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Sciences with the same pre-condition, this Application is dismissed in limine.
( L.K.Joshi ) ( V.K.Bali) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman sk