Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Tapan Kumar Mahapatra vs Atomic Energy on 2 May, 2022
> a' 1 OA 1206/2019 ' of) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA -- ee ee Pw i 0.A/350/01206/2019 Date of Order: 0465 Wi. Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member In the matter of : Shri Tapan Kumar Mahapatra, son of Late Shyama Pada Mahapatra, working at present as Work Assistant/A, Regional Radiation Medicine Centre at the premises of Saroj Gupta Cancer Centre & Research Institute, Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700063 which is one of the section of the EHEP&A Group of the Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Department of Atomic Energy 1/AF, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata-700064. ween Applicant -Versus- 1. Union of India service through the Secretary, Department cf Atomic Energy, Govt. of India, Anushakti Bhaban, CSM Marg, Mumbai-400001. 2. The Director, Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Department of Atomic Energy, Govt. of India, Sector-!, Block-AF, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata-700064. het -- at, 2 OA 1206/2019 3. The Administrative Officer-lll, Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Department of Atomic Energy, Govt. of India, Sector-l, Block-AF, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata-700064. seseeees Respondents For The Aprlicant(s): Mr. T. Bhanja, Counsel Mr. K. K. Maity, Counsel Ms. T. Sarkar, Counsel For The Respondent(s): Mr. R. Halder, Counsel ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal in second round of litigation under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief :-
"a. An order and/or direction be issued to the respondent authorities to provide the applicant the Grade pay of Rs. 7,600/- as per the 6" pay commission and to give effect of 7 Pay Commission to the said Grade Pay with all consequential benefits and to recognize his service considering his past 13 years' service in the said VECC, Kolkata, an unit of DAE Mumbai.
b. Direction upon the respondents to provide the applicant grade pay of Rs. 7,600/- as per 6" Pay Commission and consequential effect of 7" Pay Commission to the said Grade Pay or the post of SO(E) considering his qualification in M.Sc. in Information Technology as well as his more than thirteen years' experiences in the said concern.
hot a"Oa. 3 OA 1206/2019
c. Direction upon the responaent authorities to release the arrear salary of 17 months as directed by this Hon'ble Court in the order dated 27.09.2013.
d. And pass such other order or orders and/or direction/directions as your Loraships may deem fit and proper."
2. Heard both Learned Counsel. Examined pleadings and documents on record as well as those furnished by the respondent authorities in compliance to the directions of this Tribunal. Written notes of arguments have been submitted by Learnec Counsel to the applicant.
3. The facts, as ascertained from the pleadings, are as follows :
(i) That, on 24-30.10.1998, an advertisement was published for the post of Technical Assistant for ERNET Transit Node for a period of 01(one) year on a consolidated salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month, under Department of Electronics (annexed at Annexure-R/1 to the reply).
No such corresponding scale/ consolidated salary, however, was prevalent with respect to employees in the respondent organization during the material point of time.
(ii) The applicant applied for the post of Technical Assistant, purportedly, on his clear understanding of the prcvisions of such advertisement, and, his engagement was thereafter approved on 07.07.1999 and he was offered an engagement as a Technical Assistant for ERNET Transit Node (annexed at Annexure-R/2 to the reply).
(iii) That, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered into between ERNET India, New Delhi and VECC/DAE, Kolkata to formalize the relationship and broad modalities for operations of the PoP inside VECC/DAE, Kolkata (annexed at Annexure-R/4 to reply). r "
4 OA 1206/2019Such MoU having been entered into on 02.11.1999, was, thereafter, extended from time to time, and, the engagement of the applicant continued in accordance with the tenure of such MoU.
(iv) That, thereafter, as per Annexure-R/5 to the reply, the applicant appeared at an interview for extension of his engagement as System Administrator for Kolkata PoP Centre of ERNET India for a further period of 1 year, upon which his tenure was further extended up to 22.08.2012.
(v) The applicant, being aggrieved, approached this Tribunal in first stage litigation in OA 350/818/2012 with the following claim :-
"8.(a) An order directing the respondent authority being the authority of VECC to provide permanent approval to the service of the applicant in the proper post with grade pay of Rs, 7,600/- and above.
(b) An oraer and/or direction be issued directing the respondent authorities to set aside and quash the letter for interview being No. VECC/Admn/ERNET(SA)4711 dated 24.07.2012 and the order being reference No. VECC/Admn/ERNET(SA)/4919 dated 22.08.2012 issued by the Assistant Personnel Officer, VECC.
(c) An order directing the respondent authorities to provide the applicant to continue his service and not to take any coercive step against him.
(d) And pass such other order and/or direction/directions as your Lordships may deem fit and proper."
This Tribunal disposed of this OA on 07.02.2014 (annexed at Annexure-A/2 to the OA) with the following directions :-
OO Ce een OE eee HOO EHS Fee F mE OR Res mae aemEEECON TEES
18. As such under this peculiar circumstances we feel it appropriate to direct the VECC to take up the matter with the appropriate authority to suitably absorb the applicant in its organization, if required by giving him necessary training, and/or after obtaining necessary sanction for relaxation of essential conditions from the appropriate authority, and in due regard to the recommendations referred to hereinabove, pass appropriate orders within 3 months. Till such time the interim order granter earlier shall continue if not already set aside by the Hon'ble High Court and the applicant shall be allowed to perform his duties against any suitable post of VECC.
"ae ' byt ~ 6,, 5 OA 1206/2019
(vi) The respondents unsuccessfully challenged this Tribunal's orders in WPCT 93/2014 and in SLP 12317/2015. Thereafter, the authorities paid an amount of Rs. 1,98,063/- to the applicant (annexed at Annexure-R/7 to the reply) upon which, the applicant once again approached the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in C.0.C.T. No. 1 of 2016 challenging the orders dated 05.02.2016 of this Tribunal (annexed at Annexure-R/8 to the reply) , and, to disburse such salary as per the directions of this Tribunal dated 27.09.2013.
(vii) The applicant was issued an offer of ad hoc appointment (annexed at Annexure-A/5 to the OA) and his monthly pay and ailowances were fixed at a consolidated amount of Rs. 27,319/- vide letter dated 22.12.2016 (annexed at Annexure-A/7 to the OA)
(viii) The respondent authorities, vide their orders dated 20.07.2017 (annexed at Annexure-A/8 to the OA), further appointed the applicant as Work Assistant/A, RRMC, VECC, Kelkata in a substantive capacity w.e.f. 28.10.2016, with a personal pay of Rs. 5,509/- per month.
(ix) Being aggrieved, the applicant again approached the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in C.A.N. 363 of 2017 with C.A.N. 7237 of 2017 in C.O.C.T. 1 of 2016 challenging his appointment orders dated 22.12.2016 and 20.07.2017. Vide orders dated 07.08.2019 (Annexed at Annexure-R/8 to the reply), such .
challenge was considered by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to be misconceived, which thereafter proceeded to dismiss C.0.C.T. No. 1 of 2016 along with C.A.N. 363 of 2017 and C.A.N. 7237 of 2017 with liberty to the petitioner therein to seek appropriate remedy before the Tribunal.
INS a "A 6 OA 1206/2019 4, The applicant has, thereafter, approached this Tribunal in the present round of litigation, and he would seek to support his claims on the following grounds :-
'a) That, the applicant is entitled to a Grade Pay of Rs. 7,600/- commensurate with salary in terms of 7" Pay Commission recommendations with all consequential benefits and for considering his past 13 years' service as qualifying service .
(b) That, the applicant should be posted in a post equivalent to that of System Administrator which was last held by the applicant, or, in the post of Scientific Officer-E with grade pay of Rs. 7.600/-.
(c) That, the applicability of F.R. 37 (vide which the respondents have reduced his pay by any amount by which his pay was to be increased by an amount equal to his personal pay), is inapplicable to the applicant.
(d) That, as there is no post of Work Assistant/A as furnished in the Recruitment Rules of the respondent organisation, the authorities have arbitrarily determined such pay structure for him, which is not in accordance with the Recruitment Rules.
(e) That, as per F.R. 9 (23), the applicant is entitled to personal pay to save him from loss of substantive pay.
(f} That, a consolidated amount of Rs. 27,319/- for the post of System | Administrator was as per the recommendation of the 6' pay Commission and the applicant is encitled to get the salary as per recommendations of the 7"
Pay Ccmmission.
har oo vy, 7 OA 1206/2019 ig) That, the applicart is eligible for the post of Scientific Officer SO(C)/ Technical Officer TO(C) as he has required qualifications of M.Sc (iT) with 9 years of service in the equivalent post of Scientific Officer-E/ TO(E), and, that, he had obtained more than 60% in his M.Sc (IT) from Allanabad Agricultural University.
(h) That, this Tribunal nad categorically directed the authorities to absorb him, upon giving him necessary training and obtaining necessary sanctions for relaxations of essential conditions from the appropriate authority which has not been abided by the respondents in this case.
Per contra, the respondents would rebut the applicant's claim with their following arguments :-
'i) That, the respondent organization VECC is a constituent unit of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Government of India set up to carry out frontier research and development in the fields of Accelerator Science & Technology, Nuclear Science, Material Science, Computer Science and Technology and other relevant areas.
(ii) That, ERNET India is an autonomous society under the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and.
Information Techrology, Government of India.
(iii) In VECC, Sciertific officers are recruited through training schools set up at BARC, Mumbai, IGCAR, Kalpakkam and NFC, Hyderabad. After successful yt or by 8 OA 1206/2019 completion of training, scientific officers are posted in various constituent units of the DAE.
(iv) That, for recruitment of experienced scientific officers, an advertisement is"
placed in the public domain.
For gazetted posts too, advertisements are made as per recruitment rules - and no recruitments ae made on contract basis as per the recruitment policy of the respendent orgenization.
(v) That, the applicant had responded to an advertisement (annexed at Annexure-R/1 to the reply) which proposed to fill up 91 (one) post of Technical Assistant for ERNET Transit Node for-a period of one year on a consolidated salary of Rs. 4000/- pr under the Department of Electronics.
That, the applicant was engaged in the Point of Presence (PoP) located within the campus cf VECC but inherently belonging to ERNET, India.
(vi) That, after a series of litigations, and, in compliance to this Tribunal's directions in OA 818 of 2012, a Committee was set up in the DAE, which submitted its report on 10.09.2021. The Committee found that as the | applicant had scored less than 40% in B.Sc., he was not elig'ble for any post of Scientific Assistant, Technician or even as a UDC in the respondent organization.
ba "
" : : a | | 9 OA 1206/2019CO His claim on eligibility was based on his qualification of M.Sc. (IT) from one Allahabad Agriculture Institute. Such qualification was not an eligible qualification for appointment in scientific posts in the respondent organization. Hence, the Committee could find him only suitable for the post of Work Assistant/A, a post whose job profile is annexed at Annexure-R/2 to respondents' affidavit dated 30.09.2020.
(vii) That, as the applicant had never been engaged in the respondent organization in a scale regulared post and, as his last contractual post held in ERNET is not an equivalent post to the post of Scientific Officer E, his claim to | grade pay of Rs. 7600/- is denied.
(viii) There is no scope of recognition of the post services of the applicant as qualifying service as he had functioned purely in a contractual capacity in a position which, under no circumstances, could be held to be a regular post in the respondent organization.
Respondents would rety on the following judicial pronouncements in support :-
The judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. vs. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870 /2017 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19807-19808/2012) wherein the Hon'ble Court had directed as follows :- | "|, 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to Deemed to be Universities and the Deemed to be Universities in the present matter were not justified in introducing any new courses in Technical Education without the appreval of AICTE.
Oph ~ "4 10 OA 1206/2019 Il. Insofar as candidates enrolled during the Academic Sessions 2002-2005, in the present case the ex post facco approvals granted by UGC and their concerned authorities are set aside.
Il. Consequent to aforesaid direction No. Il, all the degrees in Engineering awarded by concerned Deemed to be Universities stand suspended."
The respondents would also reiterate the decision of the Hon'ble High 'Court at Guwahati ir Bikramjit Das vs. State of Assam (WP (C) 5800/2018), wherein it was directed as follows :-
"28. Considering the above, the Master Degree in Education obtained by the petitioner in the year 2014 from Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Tecnnology and Sciences, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh by an off campus mode ana in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 09.07.2012, noted above, cannot be considered to be a valid degree for the posz of Principal in provincialized Higher Page no. # 10/10 Secondary School as providec' in the said 2003 Rules."
Further an order from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir , Srinagar Bench in Javaid Ahmad Dar vs. State of J&KE& Ors. (SWP No. ars of 2012) also quashed the claim of the oetitioner therein on tne strength of his Degree obtained from Allahabad Agricultural Institute (n the distance education mcede.
A finding of the Central Information Commission would élso record that the UGC has taken proper action to stop the distance education mode programme run by Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Allahabad.
6. Having heard the rival contentions, we are of the consicered view that the following issues are required to be adjudicated in the instant OA :-
bat 4 "4% 11 OA 1206/2019
(a) Whether the applicant is eligible to be appointed in a scienzific/technical post with grade pay of Rs. 7600/- as per recommendations of tne 6" CPC and further effects on such grade pay in terms cf subsequent recommerdations of the 7 CPC.
(b) Whether the applicant can claim recognition of his past services as an contractual appointee in ERNET Transit Node as qualifying service to claim eligibility to a scienti*ic post with grade pay of Rs. 7500;- as per 6 CPC recommendations.
7. To examine the first issue, we would, at the instant, recall this Tribunal's Y #) order dated 07.02.2024 in OA 350/818/2012, as under :-
Men peewee crac ten EH IEO OO EAE OEEDS CDE DER EOE EEOD
18. As such under this peculiar circumstances we feel it appropriate to direct the VECC to take up the matter with the appropriate authority to suitably absorb the applicant in its organization, if required by giving him necessary training, and/or after obtaining necessary sanction for relaxation of essential conditions from the appropriate authority, and in due regard to the recommendations referred to hereinabove, pass appropriate orders within 2 menths. Till such time the interim order granter earlier shall continue if not already set aside by the Hon'ble High Court and the applicant shall be allowed to perform his duties against any suitable post of VECC.
PTTTTITITTIT TL Titre eed The respondents, in compliance, had set up a Commitzee comprising the Additional Secretary, DAE, Joint Secretary (R&D), DAE, Heac, NCPW, DAE and Director, VECC (annexed at Annexure-SR/3 to the Report of the respondent authorities dated 10.09.2021) with the following terms of reference :-
"(i) Scrutinise the qualification details as per records.
(ii) "ake on record the conditions of appointment of Shri T.K. Mahapatra prior to being appointed on contract for ERNET.
(iii) Consiaer the remuneration details of Shri Mahapatre, such as the last emoluments drawn by him, duly factor the additional augmentation of remuneration which would have occurred if Shri Mahapatra had continued in the sare organ-zation.
(iv) Consider the proposal of VECC based on recommendation ,copy enclosed) of the Committee constituted by Director, VECC to appoint Shri Mahapatra on regular basis to ho a"Ss 12 OA 1206/2019
BQ the pos: of Work Assistant and decide on the date of appointment of Shri Mahapatra and the emolumenis with increments such that there is no financial disadvantage to him.
(v) Any other aspect relevant in the matter.
(vi) Recommendaticn giving full justification, regarding the post to be offered to Shri Mahapatra keeping in view of the judgement of Hon'ble CAT and tne points brought out in the representation of Shri Mahapatra."
The Committee submitted its report on 10.09.2021. The minutes of the Committee are reproduced as under :- (with supplied emphasis) "Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held in DAE, Mumbai_on 23.09.2015 to consider absorption of Shri T.K Mohapatra in order to take a considered decision on absorption of Shri T.K. Mahapatra, pursuant to the Orders dated 7.2.2014 of the Hon'ble Central Aaministrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No.818/2012 and M.A. No.215/2013 filed by Shri Tapan Kumar Mahapatra, a Committee with the following composition was constituted by Secretary, DAE vide DAE Office Order No. 15 (9)/2/2015/VECC/R&D 1/12280 aated 7.9.2015:
1. Dr. C.8.5. Venkataramana, Additional Secretary, DAE: Chairman
2. Smt. Chitra Ramchandran, Joint Secretary (R&D), DAE: Member
3. Dr. K.L. Ramakumar, Head, NCPW, DAE: Member 4, Dr. D.K. Srivastava, Director, VECC : Member
2. The terms of reference of the Committee are as follows:
(i) Scrutinise the qualification details as per records.
(ii) Take on record the conditions of appointment of Shri T.K. Mahapatra prior to being appointec on contract for ERNET.
(iii) Consider the remuneration details of Shri Mahapatra, such as the last emoluments drawn by him, duly factor the additional augmentation of remuneration which would have occurred if Shri Mahapatra had continued in the same organization.
(iv) Consider the proposal of VECC based on recommendation (copy enclosed) of the Committee constituted by Director, VECC to appoint Shri Mahapatra on regular basis to the post of Work Assistant and decide on the date of appointment of Shri Mahapatra and the emoluments with increments such that there is no financial disadvantage to him.
(v) Any other aspect relevant in the matter.
(vi) Recommendation giving full justification, regarding the post to be offered to Shri Mahapatra keeping in view of the judgement of Hon'ble CAT and the points brought out in the representatian of Shri Mahapatra.
3. The above Committee met on 23.9.2015 in DAE, Mumbai when the following were present:
by X oO 13 OA 1206/2019
1. Dr. C.B.S. Venkateramana, Special Secretary, DAE
2. Dr. K.L. Ramakumar, Head, NCPW, DAE
3. Dr. D.K. Srivastava, Director, VECC Joint Secretary (R&D), DAE could not attend the meeting due to official tour.
4. The Committee noted that vide its Order dated 7.2.2014 of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No.818/2012 and M.A. No.215/2013 filed by Shri Tapan Kumar Mahapatra had passed the following orders:
uote:
"As such under this peculiar circumstances we feel it appropriate to direct the VECC to take up the matter with the appropriate authority to suitably absorb the applicant in its organisation, if required by giving him necessary training, and/or after obtaining necessary sanction for relaxation of essential conditions from the appropriate authority, and in due regard to the recommendctions referred to hereinabcve, pass appropriate orders within 3 months."
Unquote:
5. The Committee noted that Shri Mahapatra was appointed on contract basis on a consolidated salary of Rs.4000/- p.m. w.e.f. 20.07.1999 for ERNET Transit Node. A Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between VECC and ERNET India, an autonomous Society of the Department of Electronics. Consequent on expiry of the MoU between VECC and ERNET India, the services of Shri Mahapatra were dispensed from the afternocn of 30.06.2013.
6. The Committee also noted that Shri Mahapatra passed Madhyamik Pariksha (Secondary Examination) with 51.1% of marks in the year 1986 from the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, Higher Secondary Examination with 55.6% marks in the year 1989 from the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education, passed the Examination for the Degree of Bachelor of Science with Zoology, Botany and Physics with 39.3% marks from Calcutta University in the year 1992 and passed M.Sc. (IT) from Allahabad Agricultural Institute-Deemed University (A Christian University of Rural Life), Allahabad-211 007 in the year 2005.
7. From the above, it is seen that the post-graduate degree claimed to be held by Shri Mahapatra cannot be taken into consideration because the said degree is not recognised by the DAE as an eligible qualification for appointment to any scientific post in the Department. it also noted that he has less than 40% marks in his B.Sc.
degree which is an extremely low percentage of marks. The Committee noted that the minimum qualification required for recruitment to the post of Scientific Assistant in the DAE is B.Sc. degree with minimum 60% marks. Under the above circumstances, Shri Mahapatra cannot be considered for the post of Scientific Assistant in the Department. He is also not meeting the norms for appointment to the post of Technician as he does not possess 60% marks in SSC or HSC. It was also noted that the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of UDC is a Bachelor Degree with a minimum 50% marks which Shri Mahapatra does not possess.
8. The Committee further noted that Shri Mahapatra had produced some certificates claiming that prior to his contract appointment for ERNET Project, he was in employment with VECC as a temporary worker during the period from 10.01.1995 to 30.7.1997 and that he had undergone a training for 6 months in the Computer Division of VECC. However, Director, VECC informed the Committee that no credence can be given to these so cailed certificates as no records are available in VECC to suggest such an employment or training of Shri Mahapaira in VECC nor there exist any records indicating issue of such certificates by VECC Administration. Even otherwise, this aspect has no relevance for a 14 OA 1206/2019 considering his appointment in a Scientific, Technical or Aaministrative cadre in the Department for reasons explained in the preceding paragraphs.
9. With regard to the remuneration Shri Mahapatra during his contract employment with ERNET, Director, VECC informed the Committee that his last remuneration for the month of June 2013 which happened to be his last month of contract appointment with ERNET, was Ps.27,219/- (consolidated). As the remuneration was being paid by ERNET, it is considered not feasible to calculate the additional remuneration for which he would have been entitled had he continue in the same organization.
10. Therefore, upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the qualifications possessed by Shri Mahapatra, the | Committee found him suitable for the post of Work Assistant/A and, accordingly, recommended for the regular appointment of Shri Mahapatra as Work Assistant/A in the Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200 plus a Grade Pay Rs.1800 in VECC subject to his medical examination and verification of character and antecedents as per the extant orders of the Government of India. The Committee also recommended that in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, Shri Mahapatra may be exempted from personal interview before his absorption in the grade of Work Assistant/A. The Committee noted that upon his absorption to the grade of Work Assistant/A in VECC, Shri Mahapatra would draw a monthly salary of Rs.19182/-. This, together with other benefits that Shri Mahapatra would be eligible for on his absorption in the grade of Work Assistant/A in VECC, will not be less than the last remuneration for the month of June 2013 drawn by him for his contract appointment with ERNET, as shown below :
Pay in Pay Bend : Rs. 5200/-
Grade Pay : Rs. 1800/-
Dearness Allowance (at present 11.9%) 1 Rs. 8330/- House Rent Allowance : Rs. 2100/-
Transport Allowance : Rs. 800/-
DA on Transport Ailowance 7 Rs, 952/-
Salary equivalent to 2.5 days per month 2 Rs..1278/-
(proportionai to 30 days EL per year) Half Pay Leave (5/3 days per month) Rs. 426/-
(proportional to 20 days HPL per year)
11. In addition, he would be entitled for Leave Travel Concession, Children Education Allowance and other allowances as per Government of India Orders and therefore, it can be concluded thet the total remuneration attached to the cost of Work Assistant/A would be more then the remuneration drawn by Shri Mahapatra in his previous contract assignment with ERNET. Moreover, he would be eligible for similarly placed employees. He will also be eligible for receiving appropriate training at tne relevant point of time.
12, The Committez after discussion regarding date of appointment of Shri Mahapatra recommends that the date of his appointment will be the date of his joining to the post of Work Assistant/A in VECC on a regular capacity.
(Dr. C. 8. S. Venkataramana) (Dr. K. L. Ramakumar) (Dr. D. K. Srivastava) "
aS a"15 OA 1206/2019
9% From the above nected minutes, we infer that the Committee arrived at the following conclusions :-
(a) As the applicant had scored less than 40% while graduating with B.Sc. in Zoology, Botany and Physics, such marks being extremely low, rendered him completely unsuitable for the post of Scientific Assistant in the DAE , where | the mandatory requirement is of B.Sc. Degree with a minimum of 60% marks.
(b) That, the applicant did not meet the norms for the 2ost of Technician either as ne did not possess 60% in SSC or HSC.
(c) That, the applicant is ineligible for the post of UDC which called for a minimum of 50% marks in Bachelor degree . Accordingly, the applicant with his below benchmark marks of 39.03% in B.Sc. could not qualify even for the post of UDC in the Department of Atomic Energy , let alone to the post of Scientific © Assistant or Technician.
(d) That, while the applicant had claimed his eligibility to the post of Scientific Assistant/ Scientific Officer/ Technician cn the grounds of a M.Sc. (IT), purportedly obtained by him from one Allahabad Agricultural Institute-
Deemed University in the year 2006. The Committee concluded that the said claim to Post Graduation cannot be taken into consideration as because such Degree is not a recuisite eligibility qualification in the Department of Atomic Energy for appointment to any Scientific post in the Department and, bot "
16 OA 1206/2019accordingly, taking inte account the qualifications possessed by the applicant, the Committee found him suitable only for the post of Work Assistant/A and recommended his eppointment as Work Assistant/A in the Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20200/- + Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- in VECC subject to completion of requisite formalitigs.
{e) That, although the applicant is emboldened by the orders of this Tribunal, he cannot be appointed directly to the Grade Pay cf Rs. 7600/- without fulfillment of eligibility criteria and recruitment norms.
(f) That, as per extant norms, there is no provision to recruit Scientific Assistant and Technician on the strength of a M.Sc. Degree (Information Technology).
8. The applicant has relied on the Recruitment Norms of 2010 so as to refer to the recruitment norms for the post of Scientific Officer, SO(C} and TO(C) and, to --
veciferously assert that, as one of the qualifications required for the post of SO(C)/TO(C) and above is M.Sc., and, as the applicant is admittedly a M.Sc. (IT), he should be forthwith appointed in the post of Scientific/ Technical Officer, as per his M.Sc. qualifications.
The recruitment norms relied upon by the applicant is extracted from the January, 2010 'Recruitment and Promotion' guidelines in DAE for Scientific and Technical personnel and is noted as under :-
ba "17 OA 1206/2019
© S-. Educational No. of years of relevant experience after obtaining the requisite No. Qualification qualification SO(C) TO(C) SO(D) TO(D) SO(E) TO(E) i} | PhD - - 0 - 4# -
iy |M.S/M.D. or] - . 0 - At -
equivalent ia) | M.D.S. - - 0 - A# -
iv) | M.E./M.Tecr 0 . - 2 - 6 -
(After B.E. or M.Sc.)
v) | B.E./B8.Tech - 0 - 4 - 9 vi} | M.Sc. - 0 - 4 - 9
vii) | M.Pharm. - 0 - 4 - 9
viii) | M.B.B.S. + 0 - 3 - 8 -
relevant P.G. Diploma induding D.R.M. or equivalent
ix) | M.B.B.S. 1 - 5 - 10 -
x) | B.D.S. 1 - 5 - 10 --
# Exceptionally brilliant candidates can be considered even with two years of experience.
Notes : 1) The subject or the combination of subjects to be "specified" by the user agency.
XXXAXXKKXAXXXARAK XXXXAXXXXXAXAXAKXXK XXXXXXXXXKAXXKAX The above noted recruitment norms state that the subject or the combination of sudjects are to be specified by the user agency and to such effect, a memorandum dated 01.10.2021 of the respondents, would clarify as follows :-
PePPererrrriyr iititt ite i, For recruitment of Scientific/Technical Officer in the Department, the disciplines of M.Sc. degree are considered based on the requirement of particular stream of deployment in the organization for cttaining its mandates.
has "on ye 18 OA 1206/2019 Oo Note : In O.A. page 20 (para rr) the petitioners says he got information through RTI that M.Sc (IT) degree holders are holding the post of SO/F in Department. It is true. But they are not selected on the basis of M.Sc. (IT). While serving in the department they have acqu.red M.Se(IT) which is shown as their qualification in the records.
'ji. The percentage of marks required for Engineering Graduates & Science Post Graduates are kept at 69% and above for induction of better academicclly qualified candidates in Scientific/Technical Officer level in Department of Atomic Energy and VECC.
'ii. The Subject or the combination the subjects covered under B.Sc. are specified by the User Agency {i.e., User Division of the Units of DAE) in which the candidates are to be deployed according to the need of the Division. Accordingly advertisements are issued.
iv. UGC/AICTE recognized Science Post Graduation/Engineering Graduation Disciplines which have relevance in attaining the mandates of the Department only are considerea for recruitment of Scientifiz/Technical Officer personnel in the department.
Furcher it is stated that B.Sc. holders with 60% marks are considered for Recruitment of Scientific Assistant levei only and not for Scientific/Technical officer level.
However, prior to 2009, some officers with B.Sc. degree are promoted from Scientific Assistants to Officer level as per the prevalent promotion norms.
noearedve car sucersseuvereeeere sen sen roven eons HUsnmerEeheOereeseresssses esr ese ees een ey The respondents would admit that, while certain officers with B.Sc. degree have been promoted as per prevailing promotion norms, but, such procedure are dcne away with as per the extant recruitment rules. The respondent Counsel would also bring before us the recent advertisement of 2021 from the Department of Atomic Energy wherein specific requirements have been laid down for individual discipline, in accordance with post advertised.
vn Pal 19 OA 1206/2019 © The vacancy nctification of 2021 of the respondent organization for Scientific Officers s annexed at Annexure-MR/2 of their memo dated 05.10.2021. The eligibility criteria specified therein for various sub- category of posts is reproduced as uncer :-
(with supplied emphasis) "4, Qualifying Degrees and other Academic Requirements for DCES/DGGS-2021
a) For Engineerng Disciplines (codes 21-29): B.E./B.Tech /B.Se. (Engineering) /_ 5-year -
Integrated M.Tech. wrh a minimum of 60% aggregate marks in one of the 9 engineering disciplines (codes 21-29) mentioned in Table 1. Applicants opting to be considered on the basis of a GATE scor2 must have a valid GATE-2020 or GATE-2021 score in the same engineering discipline as the qualifying cegree discipline. Those having qualifying degree in branches like Aerospace, Automobile, Automotive, Aeronautical Engineering, Industrial Production, Reliability, Ceramics, Architecture, Geology, Mining, Bio-Medical Electronics/ instruments, Communication, Information Technology, Master of Computer Applications, Dyes & Dye Internediztes, Electrochemical, Energy Systems, Oi:s & Fats, Paints & Varnishes, Petrochemicals, Plastics, Paper, Sugar Technology, Textiles, Mechatronics, Power Engineering, Power Plant Engineering, Software Engineering, Electronics & Computer Engineering, Biomedical Electronics, Biomedical Instrumentation etc. are NOT eligible.
b) For Fast Reactor Technology-M (FRT-M, code 30): 8.£./B.Tech. /B.Sc. (Engineering) /5- year Integrated M.Tech. in Mechanical Engineering or Chemical Engineering with minimum of 60% aggregate marks in qualifying degree. FRT-M is an additional Training Scheme option availadle to apalicants belonging to Mechanical Engineering or Chemical Engineering (codes 21 and 22) and hence there will not be separate screening test or Selection -- Interview.
c) For Fast Reaczor Technology-E (FRT-E, code 31): B.E. /B.Tech. /3.Sc.(Engineering) / 5-year integrated M.Tech. ir Mechanical Engireering or Electronics Engineering with minimum of 60%* ageregate marks in qualifying degree. FRT-E is an additional Treining Scheme option available to applicants belonging to Electrical Engineering or Electronics Engineering (codes 24 and 25) and hence there will not be separate screening test or selec-ion interview.
d) For Quality Assurance & Quality Control (QA&QC, code 32} ;_8.E./B.Tech. /B.Sc.(Engineering)/ 5-year Integrated M.Tech. in Mechanical Engineering or Metallurgical Engineering wity minimum of 60% aggregate marks in qualifying degree. QA&QC is an additional Traming Scheme option available to applicants belonging to Mechanical Engineering or Metallurgical Engineering (codes 21 and 23) and hence there will not be separace screening test or Selection interview.
e) For Physics Discipline (code 41): M.Sc. in Physics/Applied Physics with Physics and Mathenatics e< B.Sc. or at subsidiary and/or ancillary level case_of 5-year Integrated. M.Sc,or B.E./B.Tech. in Engineering Physics with a minimum cf 60% azgregate marks in the qualifying degree. M.Sc. candidates (other than those applying with a 5-year Integrated . M.Sc. degree) must additionally have a minimum of 60% aggregate marks in B.Sc. Physics bod a"
20 OA 1206/2019postgraduate applicants opting to be considered on the basis of a GAT= Score should have a valid GATE-2020 GATE-2021 Score in 'Physics'. Applicants having B.E./B.Tech. (Engineering Physics) as cualifying aegree can apply on the basis of a valid GATE-2020 or GATE-2021 Score either :n 'Physics' or in 'Engineering Sciences'.
f) For Chemistry Discipline (code 42): M.Sc. in Chemistry with Physics up to B.Sc. cr at subsidiary and/or ancillary level in case of 5-year integrated M.Sc. and Mathematics at Std.
XII or at B.Sc. or at subsidiary and/or ancillary level in case of 5-year integrated M.Sc. w'th a minimum of 60% aggregate marks in M.Sc. All candidates (other than those applying with a 5-year integrated .Sc. degree) must additionally have a minimum of 60% aggregate marks in B.Sc. Applicants opting to be considered on the basis of a GATE Score should have a valid GATE-2020 or GATE-2021 Score in 'Chemistry'.
g) For Biosciences Discipline (code 43): M.Sc. in Agriculture, B:ochemistry, Microbiology, Molecular Biology, Biotechnology, Genetics, Botany, Zoology, Plant Sc'ence, Plant Breeding, Plant Pathology, Ertomology, Food Technology. Animal Science, Life Sciences, Biomedical Sciences and Biosciences with a minimum of 60% aggregate marks In M.Sc. as well as B.Sc.; B.Tech./B.Sc.(Tecn) only Food Technology with minimum 60% agg-egate marks in M.Sc. as well as in B.Sc.; or B.£./B. Tech. B.Sc. (Tech.) only in Food Technology with minimum of 60% Aggregate marks. M.Sc. applicants should have at least one out cf Physics or Chemistry or Biochemistry or Agricutture Chemistry as a subject at the B.Sc. stage or at subsidiary and/or ancillary leve! in case of 5-year Integrated M.Sc. Applicants opting to be considered on the basis of a GATE Score should have a valid GATE-2020 or GATE-2921 Score in 'Life Sciences' or in 'Biotechnoiogy'. Those having M.Sc. with specialization in subjects like Fisheries, Horticulture, Forestry, Agronomy, Animal Husbandry, Marine Biology, Bio-analytical Sciences, Bicinformatics, and Home Science etc. and B.E./B.Tech./M.Tech. in Biotechnology/ Genetic Engineering / Biomedical Engineering are not eligible.
h} For Radio'ogical Safety & Environmental Science (RSES, code 44}: B.E./ B.Tech. in Nuclear Engineering' Nuclear ~echnology /Nuclear Science & Technology with minimum of 60% aperegate marks or M.Sc. in Physics or Chemistry with Physics end Chemistry up to B.Sc. or at subsidiary and/or ancillary level in case of integrated M.Sc., and Mathematics at Std. XI or at B.Sc. or at subsidiary and/or ancillary level in case of 5-year integrated M.Sc., with minimum of 60% aggregate marks in M.Sc. All science candidates {other than those appiying with a 5-year integrated M.Sc. degree) must additionally have a minimum of 60% aggregate marks ir B. $c. 2S=S is an additional Training Scheme option to applicants belonging to Nuclear Engineering, Physics and Chemistry disciplines (codes 29, 41 and 42) and hence there will nct be separate screening test or Selection interview.
i) For Geology Discipiine (Code 45): M.Sc. or equivalent M.Tech. in Geology/ Applied Geology' Applied Geochemistry with Geology at B.Sc. or 5-year integrated M.Tech. in Geological Technology. Eligible candidates must have two sutjects out of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry up to B.Sc. or at subsidiary and/or ancillary level in case of 5-year integrated M.Sc./ 5-year integrated M.Tech., with minimum cf 60% aggregate marks in M.Sc./M.Tec'. Ail eligible candidates (other than those applying with a 5-year integrated M.Sc. /M.Tech. aegree} must have a minimum of 60% aggregate marks in B.Sc. Additionally, eligible candidates must have passed Mathematics in Std. XII. All applicants opting to be considered on the basis of a GATE Score should have a valid GATE-2020 or GATE-2021 Score in 'Geology and Geophysics'. Those having B.Tech. In Geology, Mining are not eligible.
Those having M.Sc. (by research) or Ph.D. are not eligible."
bit 7"
ry 21 OA 1206/2019 The vacancy notification of 2021 reveals as follows :-
(a) That, scieniific officers' posts are to be filled up as per requirements in respective discipline which is in response to the requirement in the Recruitment norms (supra) that authorities will specify in vacancy notifications, such particular discipline in which M.Sc. is required in terms of Recruitment Rules 2010, relied upon by the applicant.
(b) That, the essential requirement as brought out in the vacancy notification fs Y #|that M.Sc. candidates must have a minimum of 60% aggregate marks in B.Sc. in the respective field.
(c} That, for Engineering disciplines, those with qualifying degree of Information Technology are not eligible.
(d) The vacancy notifications for Scientific Officers clearly mandate minimum of 60% marks in M.Sc. and B.Sc. in the qualifying discipline. Hence, in the event the vacancy notification had called for Scientific Officers in the discipline of "Information Technology" or "Physics/Zoology/Botany", the candidate would be required to possess requisite B.E./ B.Techf BSc. (IT)/ B.Sc. (Physics/Zoology/Botany) or a 5-year integrated M.Tech/ M.Sc. with a minimum of 60% aggregate marks in IT/ Physics/Zoology/Botany. The applicant's B.Sc.
| Degree with Zoology, Botany and Physics with 39.3% marks renders him ineligible hy a 22 OA 1206/2019 © as his graduation marks are far below 40% and he clearly fails to achieve the eligibility criterion of 60% in B.Sc.
Further, his M.Sc. in Information Technology also does not qualify for eligibility as his graduation is not in Information Technology and vacancy notifications call for all qualifying degrees in associated discipline.
Hence, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the applicant's reliance on his stand alone M.Sc. degree in Information Technology does not render him } eligible, for any Scientific post in the respondent organizatior.
This view receives further support from the Recruitment and Promotional guidelines in DAE annexed as SR-4 to the report of tke Committee dated 23.09.2015 set up in DAE (supra). The recruitment norms of SA(B) and above are as under :-
Sr. Educational No. of years of relevant experience after Remarks No. Qualification obtaining requisite qualification SA(B) | SA(C) | SA(Di | SA(E) | SA(F)
i) B.Sc. Min. 60% in B.Sc.
ii) | Diploma in Engg. -3 Min. 60% in Diploma years after S.S.C.)
iii)(aj | B.Sc. (Computer Min. 60% in B.Sc.
Science)
iii)(b) | BSc + 1 year Min. 60% in B.Sc. & Diploma inj 0 4 8 13 19 | 60% in Diploma Computer Science ,
iii)(c) | B.Sc. (Statistics) + 1 Min. 60% in B.Sc. & year Diploma in 60% in Diploma Computer Scier-ce We find that the essential condition for appointment tc the post of Scientific Assistant(B) and above is a mandatory minimum benchmark of 60% in B.Sc. which ba "
23 OA 1206/2019the applicant admitted'y does not possess as he has obtained a very low score of 39.3% in his Graduation. The applicant would argue that he is an aspirant for the post of Scientific Officer and not Scientific Assistant. Clearly, his qualifications rencer him unfit for both. Accordingly, his claim to be appcinted as Scientific Officer(E})/equivalent post with grade pay of Rs. 7600/- (as per 6" CPC) fails.
The applicant has not brought before us any vacancy notification issued .
\ §) between the years 2024 (the year of this Tribunal's orders in OA 382/2018) and 2020 ( prior to vacancy notification of 2021) which had notified a stand alone deg-ee in M.Sc. (IT) as the sole entry qualification to a scientific post in the respondert organization. The applicant has also not furnished in his support any Recruitment Rules that allows entry into the scientific cadre only on the basis of M:Sc., ignoring the basic qualification of B.Sc. whose benchmark score is a minimum of 60%.
in this regard, reference is made <o the Hon'ble Apex Court's rulings in Basic Education Board U.P. vs. Upendra Rai (2008) 3 SCC 432, Mangej Singh vs. Union of India (1998) 9 SCC 471, Surinder Singh vs. U.O.1. (2007) 11 SCC 599 and Mohd.
Altaf (3) vs. UPSC (2008) 14 SCC 146 , which held that 't is the authority and prerogative of the employer to decide on the qualifications for recruitment and hat wt 24 OA 1206/2019 that, once such eligibility criteria is clarified, it applies to everyone, irrespective of the fact whether they had initiated legal proceedings or not.
'Regarding the cognizance of the applicant's M.Sc. (IT) degree from Allahabad Agricultural Institute, the respondents may satisfy themselves on the validity of such degree upon due reference to UGC/ AICTE, in the evert that the applicant's M.Sc. (IT) degree require any further scrutiny.
29, | The seccnd issue relates to the applicant's claim that his contractual tenure at ERNET (@consolidated pay of Rs. 4000/-) as extended from time to time be considered as qualifying service in granting him the post with grade pay of Rs. 7600/- (as per 6" CPC recommendations).
The respondents would rebut the applicant's claim "or recognition of his work for the fast 13 years in ERNET, contending the applicant had never been appointed in VECC, that he was never appointed in a scale regulated post, and, - that, the last post that the applicant had held in ERNET is not equivalent to the post with grade pay of Rs. 7600/- as the post of Scientific Officer is a Gazetted post which cannot be equated with a post held on contractual basis held by the applicant in ERNET.
The applicant was undisputedly not engaged against any regular post in VECC, but against a contractual post of Technical Assistant during validity of a hax ""25 OA 1206/2019
MOU between ERNET and VECC to operationalize the PoP located in VECC -- (annexed at Annexure-R/4 to the reply). He was neither engaged by VECC nor engaged against any regular post as there were no such post @ consolidated pay of Rs. 4000/- in the VECC pay structure for regular posts. All VECC posts are filled up by open advertisement . The applicant has not brought before us any scheme in the respondent organization whereby appointments were made upon regularization or absorption of contractual appointees of cther ministries or for } recognition of the period of contractual service in other ministries.
Even this Tribunal, in its earlier order in OA 350/818/2012 had inferred, that tne applicant was a contractual employee.
This Tribunal, nowhere in its orders dated 07.02.2014, had directed the respondent authorities to engage the applicant either as a Scientific Officer or a Technical Officer at a Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- (as per 6 CPC recommendation). This Tribunal hac on'y directed his suitable absorption after requisite training | and/or in relaxation of essential conditions from the appropriate authority. There were no mandates to relax entry level qualifications to scientific/technical posts to accommodate the applicant's 39.3% at graduation level.
10. Vide orders dated 09.06.2011(annexed at Annexure-R/2 to the affidavit datac 30.09.2020), and, in response to orders of this Tribunai dated 26.09.2019, the respondents have furnished guidelines for screening promotion proposals of hans
-
26 OA 1206/2019personnel in contractual category (Work Assistant in DAE) that provide for the scope of engaging eligible candidates to the post of Work Assistant who may have to verform such tasks hitherto be performed by different cetegories of Grade 'D' employees. The list of duties performed by the Work Assistant is annexed to such orders of June 9, 2011 of the DAE.
The respondents would also furnish, by way of Annexure-R/3 to such } affidavit, that the applicant has been assigned day to day duty of maintenance of .
personal computers including rectification of minor problems, looking after local area network and maintaining store of various consumable materials for use at RRMC. That, aithough, the applicant would allege that he has been entrusted with --
the duties of a sweeper in his capacity of a Work Assistant, the In charge of RRMC section of VECC has categorically certified (annexed at Annexure-R/3 to respondents affidavit dated 30.09.2020) that the applicant has never been assigned the role of cleaning or other menial job.
'11. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the applicant's qualifications do not entitle him to his appointment to the post of Scientific Officer/ Technician in the respondent crganization. We also find that the Committee set up by the DAE actually went beyond the enlisted categories of various employment posts in VECC, Kolkata to grant due relaxation to the bo "
27 OA 1206/2019applicant to be engaged as a Work Assistant in view of the fact that his academic qualifications did not entitle him to any of the enlisted posts.
12. The applicant's claim for recognition of his past service as qualifying service comes to a naught as pecause admittedly, as noted by this Tribunal in the earlier OA, the applicant was a contractual staff and had rendered his service for 13 years as a contractual employee. Hence his claim to recognition of his past service in such contractual pest as a Technical Assistant, not be ng a regular post in the - respondent organization, fails. Consequently, he cannot claim equivalence with reference to the contractual post of Technical Assistart as no such post ever existed in the respondent organization as per SR-4 of the report of the respondent's report dated 10.09.2021.
The applicant has relied on Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Rajasthan (Civil Appeal No. 5102-5103) to claim that employees, once posted in higher ranks, cannot be reverted to lower posts. As the applicant had never been a regular employee of the respondent organization in any high level post, the question of reversion does not arise.
His reliance on State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Harbans Lal (W.P.C. No. 25878 of 2020) so as to highlizrt that daily wage services are to be counted as qualifying ha
-_ 28 OA 1206/2019 services does not come to his aid as he was never working on daily wages against a regular post in tne respondent organization.
(13. The applicant, in his second rejoinder cated 15.09.2021 as well as in the written notes of arguments of his Ld. Counsel has disclosed, purportedly after detailed research, a list of employees who have reportedly attained, after joining service qualifications of Ph.D. and M.Tech from the Homi Bhabha Institute, Maharashtra. It is not disputed that employees may attain higher qualifications . after joining service. The applicant has not questioned the entry qualifications of the employees. Hence reference to employees with eligikle entry qualifications who acquire higher ecucation while in service, with the applicant's lack of entry qualifications of 60% ir B.Sc., does not come to the aid of the applicant.
14. Applicant's Ld. Counsel has furnished, at pages 6,7 and 8 of his written notes, a list of scienti"ic officers/ technicians reportedly without requisite entry qualifications, and, would claim that the applicant be appointed accordingly in the --
scientific/technical posts to which he aspires. His allegations are as under :-
"The fohowing employee did not get any permission for AMIE from VECC and got promotion to Scientific Officer-C on the basis of AMIE degree on 01.08.2005 when this degree was not recognized by AICTE and presently holding the post of Scientific Officer-E. SI. No. 3. Mou Chatterjee, without any permission from the office far AMIE Below 60% marks got in the AMIE degree promoted to Scientific Office- B & C SI. No. 10. S. K. Guha aad % age Marks in AMIE degree 59.3%, promoted to Technical Officer
--Con 01.07.2011 "a 29 OA 1206/2019 SI. No. 12. Kanchan Majumder and % age of Marks in the AMIE degree is 52.25%, promoted to Scientific Officer --C on 01.08.2003.
Without additional qualification promoted to Scientific Officer-B and _C based on experience only.
Sl. No. 13. Biswanatn Manna promoted to Scientific Officer-C on 01.08.2007 SI. No. 14, P. S. Chakraborty promoted to Scientific Officer - B on 91.08.2002 Sl.No. 15, Ranadev Dutta promoted Scientific Officer-B on 01.08.200C In the applicant's case after completion of MSc. -IT degree the applicant submit to VECC and got promotion from Tecnnical Assistant to System Engineer effect from | 06.02.2007 'Ref : CA no. 818 of 2012, page no. 42, para no. 2) and again got promotion to System Administrator effect from 01/09/2009 (Ref: OA No. 818 of 2012, page no. 37, para no. Las:). VECC alreacy accepted his degree of MSc-IT and VECC informed to the information seeker under RT! 2CO5 that his last degree is MSc-IT (Ref: VECC/RTI 847/Adm./914 dated 10/12/2021) (A) CC NO 861/257, Or. Tapas Samanta, M. Tech in Computer Science and IT (B) iC No 10817, Shri Raghuraman R, Scientific Officer-F, Msc-IT, IGCAR/DAE (Ref:
IGCAR/2(116)/2016-17/Admn(O&M)/1771 dated 28/02/2017- (Page 34 and 35 of Supplementary Affidavit) (C) Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, admitted MSc -IT degree for the gazette post.
(D) AMD/DAE published an Advertisement vide AMD-3/2021 Asked Scientific Assistant-B Compurer Science & Information Technology (IT) B.Sc. Biology in the VECC CC No. 807/1009 Shri Sourav Mondal, Scientific Assistant-B, Quatification- BSc. In Biology.
M.Sc. (zoolozy) Biolagy in the VECC CC No. 801/491, Sushanta Kumar Roy, Scientific Officer-E which will be reflected from Annexure A/10 of this written submission.
B.Com pass, Scientific Assistant-F in the VECC SLNo. 217, CC No. 807/365 Shri Partha Bhaskar (page no. 83 of OA) B.Sc., without Division Scientific Assistant lg A a"
30 OA 1206/2019a} SI. No. 391, CC No. 897/803, Shri Shambhu Nath Das, Scientific Assistant-F (page no. 99 of OA) B.Sc., 3" Division Scientific Assistant SI. No. 229, CC Ne. 807/490, Shri S. K. Manna, Scientific Assistant -F (page no. 93 of OA) B.Sc. , without Division Scientific Officer SI.No. 28, CC No. 801/247, Shri Asis Polley, Scientific Officer-E (page no. 84 of OA) AMIE without Division Scientific Officer SI. No. 80, 801/327, Shri Umashankar Panda, Scientific Officer- F (page no. 86 of OA) Diploma, Scientific Officer-D SI. No. 55, 801/2$3, Shri Vipendra Kumar Khare (page no. 85 of OA}
8.Sc. and M.Sc., 2" Division Scientific Officer-F SI. No. 25, 801/243, Snri Jai Shankar Prasad (page no. 84 of OA) SI. No. 43, 801/273, Snri Bivas Shoor (page no. 85 of OA) B.Sc., 2™ Division Scientific Officer SI. No. 70, 801/311, Shri Srimanta Bhattacharya, Scientific Officer-F (page no. 86 of OA) Technicsan pest in the VECC without any Technical Qualification with V/VII/VINI/IX pass SI. No. 232, CC No. 807/519, Shri Kartick Chandra Das, Technician-F, Class-V Pass (page no.
93 of OA} Si. No. 258, CC No. 807/609, Shri S. C. Mondal, Technician-F, Class-ViN pass (page no. 94 of OA) Si. No. 280, CC No. 807/649, Shri Dilip Das, Technician-F, Class-IX pass, (page no. 95 of OA) Sl. No. 293, CC Ne. 897/670, Shri Kalipada Jana, Technician-F, Class-VH pass (page no. 95 of OA)."
In such backdrop, reference is made to the judgement and orders in Bihar Public Service Commission and others vs. Kamini and others (2007) 5 SCC 519, wherein the Hon'ble Court held as under :-
"10. In our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the Commission is well founded and must be accepted. Therefore, even if in 1993, some ineligible candidates were wrongly created as eligible, the first respondent cannot insist that she also must be treated eligible though she is ineligible. In our considered opinion, such an ection cannot give rise to (yf oo . 31 OA 1206/2019 equality clause enshrined by Article 14 of the Constitution. It is well settled that needs no authority that misconscruction of a provision of law in one case does not give rise to a similar misconstructian in other cases on the basis of doctrine of equality. An illegality cannot be allawea to be perpetuated under the so-called "equality doctrine". That is not the sweep of Article 14, Even that contention, therefore, has not impressed us."
Further reference is made to the ratio contained in UO! & Anr. vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal & Anr. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 422 and, in Pankjeshwar Shara and Others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others (Civil Appeals Nos. 3904- 95 of 2020 with nos. 3907-34 of 2020). In Kartick Chandra Mondal (supra) , The Ho7'ble Apex Court held as under :-
"67. By now it is settlec that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and #t cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order..."
In Pankjeshwar Shara {supra}, the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that, "similar benefits cannot be claimed which would perpetuate mistake-negative equality cannot be claimed to perpetuate further illegality."
As allegations have been raised, however, the respondent organisations wculd do well to set up a Committee to specifically enquire into the legality of the ap2ointments cited supra, and to take appropriate decisions in such matters.
15. In conclusion, this Tribunal, in its considered opinion, does not consider the applicant to be eligible for appointment to a post with grade pay of Rs. 7600/- (as per 6" CPC recommendations) in the respondent organization. The scope of ty Pa . 32 "QA 1206/2019 further effect as per recommendations of the CPC to such grade pay, therefore, does not arise.
This Tribunal also does not accept the applicant's contentions that his earlier services as a contractual appointee with ERNET India, an autonomous society under the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, under the Meity, deserve to be counted as qualifying service for appointment in the respondent organization, which is a constituent unit of the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India.
16. Hence the applicant's claim fails, OA is dismissed on merit. No costs.
(Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) (Bidisha Banerjee) Administrative Member . Judicial Member sl