Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Medini G vs M/O Science And Technology on 28 September, 2018
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 180/00490/2015
Friday, this the 28th day of September, 2018
CORAM
HON'BLE MR.E.K.BHARAT BHUSHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MR.ASHISH KALIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Medini.G
Junior Technical Officer (IS&IR)
Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences
& Technology (SCTIMST)
Thiruvananthapuram
Pin - 695 011 ... Applicant
[By Advocate Mr.R.V.Sreejith]
V.
1. The Secretary to Government of India
Ministry of Science and Technology
Department of Science and Technology
New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi - 110 003
2. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences
& Technology, Thiruvananthapuram
Pin-695 011, represented by its Director
3. Geethakumari.V
Scientific Assistant
Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute For Medical Sciences
& Technology (SCTIMST)
Thiruvananthpauram, Pin - 695 011 ... Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.S.Ramesh,ÁCGSC for R1 & Mr.T.R.Ravi for R2)
This application having been finally heard on 26.9.2018, the Tribunal on 28.9.2018
delivered the following in the open court.
ORDER
Per: MR.E.K.BHARAT BHUSHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Applicant in this case is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of respondent no.2 in selecting the applicant for the post of Scientific Assistant in the Department of 2 Imaging Science and Interventional Radiology (IS&IR). While admitting that the applicant had failed in the written test, falling short of the qualifying marks for being called for the interview, she submits that being a member of Scheduled Caste, she ought to have been granted 10% additional marks as per Annexure A-1and Annexure A-2 O.Ms of the Department of Personnel and Training whereby she could have been selected.
2 Applicant had entered the service of respondent no.2 on 10.3.1984 and has been functioning as Junior Technical Officer (JTO for short) with effect from 1.7.2012. Being the senior most JTO (IS & IR) she had applied for promotion as Scientific Assistant and had appeared in the written test conducted on 19.2.2013. However, she was the only one of the 6 candidates who failed to attain the qualifying marks for being called for interview. Finally, respondent no.3 was selected for the post. Applicant alone was the reserved candidate and the post in question was Open Merit. It is submitted that Government of India had issued a notification as per Annexure A-1dated 3.10.2000 stating that in pursuance of enabling proviso to Article 335 of the Constitution of India, it has been decided to restore the relaxation concessions in matter of promotions, for candidates belonging to SC/STs by lower qualifying marks, lesser standards of evaluation that existed prior to 22.7.1997 (Annexure A-1). Further Annexure A-2 is a copy of another O.M dated 23.12.1970 which is the principal circular in the matter of relaxation of standards in departmental competitive examinations for promotion and in departmental confirmation examination. This circular decrees that qualifying standards are to be relaxed in the case of SC/ST candidates. The benefit of such relaxation was denied to the applicant by respondent no.2.
3 Although she did not qualify and was not allowed to present herself for the interview, she has made several allegations regarding marks granted to various candidates at the interview. She submits that this was in order to select respondent no.3. All her attempts to get justice through various representations have drawn a 3 blank and hence she is before this Tribunal.
4 The reliefs sought in the Original Application are as below:-
" (i) Call for the records leading to Annexure A-5 and quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant relaxation of10% marks to the applicant in the written test held on 19.2.2013 and to promote her as Scientific Assistant
(ii) To direct the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the promotion granted to the 3 rd respondent and to promote the applicant in her place.
(iii) To declare that Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, Service and Personal Conduct Rules 1977 is unconstitutional to the extent it does not given relaxation of marks to members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes as prescribed by Annexure A-2 and Article 335 of the Constitution of India. "
5 In the reply statement on behalf of respondent no.2, the facts of the applicant's service are admitted. It is also admitted that the written test was conducted for the post of Scientific Assistant and marks were apportioned as follows:
"1. Written test and/or trade test : 50 marks
2. Interview : 20 marks
3. ACRs : 30 marks
------------
Total : 100 marks
========= "
As seen from the above, maximum marks for the written examination was 50 and the marks for interview was 20. The applicant fell short of the qualifying 4 mark as she has scored only 23 marks for written test, the qualifying marks being 25. Affirmations made in the Original Application with respect to Annexures A-1 & A-2 are only in respect of posts which are reserved for SC/ST.
The relevant paragraph of Annexure A-2, the preliminary circular is quoted:
" ............ if sufficient number of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates are not available on the basis of general standard to fill all the vacancies reserved for them, candidates belonging to these communities may be selected to fill up the remaining vacancies reserved for them provided they are not found unfit for appointment to such post or posts...... "
(emphasis supplied)
6. This indicates clearly that the question of allowing additional weightage for reserved candidates is applicable only in respect of posts reserved for those categories and not when they compete against Open Merit categories. The issue of granting marks to various candidates in interview is irrelevant as the applicant here was not a participant at the interview and none who participated had any grievance about the same.
7. Heard Mr.R.V.Sreejith, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.T.R.Ravi, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the records.
8. The entire edifice of the applicant's case is that she is entitled to get additional marks on account of the O.Ms referred at Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2. However, a plain reading of these would show that such additional weightage is allowed only in case of candidates who are competing for posts which are reserved for those categories and in no other case. Thus, the 5 applicant does not have a valid ground to claim the benefits accruing from the said O.Ms.
9. In the above circumstance, we conclude that the Original Application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. We proceed to do so. No costs.
(ASHISH KALIA) (E.K.BHARAT BHUSHAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
sv
6
List of Annexures
Annexure A-1 - True copy of Government notification as O.M
No.36012/23/96-Estt.(Res) Vol.II dated 3.10.2000 Annexure A-2 - True copy of O.M No.8/12/69-Est.(SCT) dated 23.12.1970 Annexure A-3 - True copy of representation dated 14.3.2013 submitted by the applicant before the 2nd respondent Annexure A-4 - True copy of the representation dated 25.7.2013 submitted by the applicant before the 2 nd respondent Annexure A-5 - True copy of the letter No.P&A II/392/S/A- IS&IR/SCMIST/2013 dated 14.8.2013 of the 2 nd respondent .....