Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Vikram Singh Son Of Mohar Singh Resident ... vs U.T. Administration on 19 May, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.No.060/00899/2015 Orders pronounced on: 19.05.2016
(Orders reserved on: 16.05.2016)
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) &
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A)
Vikram Singh son of Mohar Singh resident of Ward No. 19, Hanuman Colony, Sangaria, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
Applicant
Versus
1. U.T. Administration, Chandigarh through its Administrator, U.T. Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
2. Education Department, through its Secretary, U.T. Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3. Director Public Instructions (Schools), 1st Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
4. Sanjay Kumar Son of Sh. Jagdish, Registration No. 41300726
5. Reena Daughter of Sh. Madan Lal, Registration No.41304566
6. Pardeep Kumar Son of Sh. Des Raj, Registration No.41306432
7. Sunita daughter of Sh. Devi Chand, Registration No. 41307330
8. Ishwar Kumar son of Lekh Raj, Registration No. 41301661
9. Kirpal Singh son of Sh. Narinder Singh, Registration No. 41310954
10. Ved Parkash Son of Sh. Ram Singh, Registration No.41313879
11. Ruchi daughter of Sh. Yoginder Kumar, Registration No.41307594
12. Sujata Pal daughter of Sh. Ram Shiromani Pal, Registration No.41301383
13. Shashi Kant son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Registration No. 41307641
14. Narender Sehgal Son of Sh. Chunni Lal Sehgal, Registration No.41300226
15. Gurbaksh Singh Son of Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Registration No.41314480
16. Rajpal daughter of Dev Nand, Registration No.41310908
17. Gulshan Kumar Son of Sh. Bachhittar Singh, Registration No.41302058
18. Navdeep Singh Son of Sh. Balraj Singh, Registration No.41307201
19. Bijender Singh Son of Sh. Dilbag Singh, Registration No.41302751
20. Neha Verma daughter of Sh. Tilak Raj Verma, Registration No.41307446
21. Pinky daughter of Sh. Lakshman Singh, Registration No. 41307458
22. Gagandeep Kaur daughter of Sh. Sarwan Singh, Registration No. 41305524
23. Ajay Kumar son of Sh. Sohan Singh, Registration No. 41300408
24. Saveen Kumar Son of Sh. Udayveer Singh, Registration No.41308343
25. Priyanka daughter of Sh. Kashmiri Lal, Registration No., 41301796
26. Jyoti daughter of Sh. Ramesh Chander, Registration No., 41313726
27. Gurdeep Singh son of Sh. Giasu Ram, Registration No. 41310884
28. Vikaram Singh Son of Sh. Shram Singh, Registration No.41311902
29. Sukhwinder Singh Son of Sh. Jagdev Singh, Registration No.41304171
30. Neeraj Panwar daughter of Sh. Kanwar Singh, Registration No. 41301528
31. Sunita Devi daughter of Sh. Tarsem Lal, Registration No., 41312426
32. Sonika daughter of Sh. Raj Kumar, Registration No. 41300664
33. Jyoti Bala daughter of Sh. Anand Kishore, Registration No.41311207
34. Ajay Pal Son of Sh. Om Prakash, Registration No.41310051
35. Shweta daughter of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Registration No.41313001
36. Manisha Yadav daughter of Sh. Sumer Singh, Registration No. 41310919
37. Gurpreet Singh Son of Sh. Khan Chand, Registration No.41313467
38. Suraj Bhan son of Sh. Ram Niwas, Registration No. 41300190
39. Jitender Kumar Son of Sh. Hanuman Prasad, Registration No.41310389
40. Amand Deep Kaur daughter of Sh. Mohan Singh, Registration No.41307120
41. Seema Dhiman daughter of Sh. Pritam Singh, Registration No.41304114
42. Sunraj Singh Son of Sh. Darshan Singh, Registration No.41305052
43. Shiv Kumar Son of Sh. Padam Sain, Registration No. 41302696
44. Jaspal Kaur daughter of Sh. Manjeet Singh, Registration No. 41307991
45. Parveen Kumar son of Sh. Sher Singh, Registration No. 41311036
46. Veerpal daughter of Sh. Singara Singh, Registration No.41311829
47. Kuldeep Kumar Son of Sh. Babu Ram, Registration No.41310181
48. Ankush Verma daughter of Sh. Anil Kumar Verma, Registration No.41305764
49. Jyoti daughter of Sh. Parkash Chand, Registration No.41308008
50. Jaskirat Kaur daughter of Sh. Harjeet Singh, Registration No.41310293
51. Neelam daughter of Sh. Shriniwas, Registration No.41305852
52. Vandna daughter of Sh. Subhash Chand, Registration No.41304733
53. Sandeep Kumar Son of Sh. Mahabir Prashad, Registration No.41300253
54. Gautam Yadav Son of Sh. Bani Singh Yadav, Registration No.41311791
55. Mukesh Kumar Son of Sh. Joginder Singh, Registration No.41314926
56. Ansu Kumari daughter of Sh. Rajender Singh Yadav, Registration No.41310251
57. Parveen Kumar son of Sh. Bhagwan Dass, Registration No.41315284
58. Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. Suresh Kumar, Registration No. 41309370
59. Pardeep Kumar Son of Sh. Nathu Ram, Registration No.41307447
60. Susheel Kumar Son of Sh. Sunder Lal, Registration No.41310390
61. Priyanka Rani, daughter of Sh. Dev Prakash, Registration No.41305862
62. Rajvinder Kaur daughter of Sh. Mahender Singh, Registration No.41307434
63. Anu Gorsi daughter of Sh. Jaipal Singh, Registration No.41303289
64. Madhvi Yadav daughter of Sh. Suresh Yadav, Registration No.41304792
65. Seema Rani daughter of Sh. Mohinder Singh, Registration No. 41305857
66. Sonu son of Sh. Bhagat Singh, Registration No.41303585
67. Deepa daughter of Late Sh. Vishvender Kumar, Registration No. 41307690.
68. Harshita daughter of Sh. Brahm Prakash, Registration No. 41305684
69. Kitty Rathore daughter of Sh., Shiv Kumar Rathore, Registration No. 41303232
70. Kavita daughter of Sh. Dayanand Wife of Sh. Karan Singh, Registration No. 41307740
71. Ritu Rani daughter of Sh. Karam Chand, Registration No. 41302625.
Respondents No. 4 to 71 through Director Public Instructions (Schools) Ist Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
Respondents
Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate, for the applicants.
Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Advocate, for the respondents.
O R D E R
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK , MEMBER (J)
1. In this O.A. filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the prayer of the applicant is declare the action of the respondents in appointing the Respondents No. 4 to 71, belonging to OBC category, to the post of JBT Teacher as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as they are lower in merit than the applicant herein.
2. The facts which led to the filing of this Original Application are that the respondents issued a Public Notice in November, 2014 inviting applications for filing up 489 posts of JBTs and 103 posts of Nursery Teachers on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800 + Rs.4200 grade pay with initial start of Rs.16290 plus allowance sanctioned by the Chandigarh Administration. Out of these 489 posts, 177 were reserved for OBC category. The applicant, who belongs to Ramgarhia Caste, applied against the aforesaid advertisement as a general category candidate. He was issued Admit Card/Roll No. The test was conducted on 1.2.2015 in which the applicant secured 122 marks, way above the minimum prescribed marks.
3. Meanwhile, during pendency of the selection process, the Chandigarh Administration, Social Welfare Department on 26.3.2015 issued a notification including various new castes in the list of OBC category including the Ramgarhia caste. The applicant submitted a representation to the respondents to change his category from general to OBC in view of notification dated 26.3.2015. However, after completion of selection process the list of eligible candidates was uploaded on official website on 14.8.2015 and selected candidates have been issued appointment orders. However, the applicant, who is higher in merit than respondents no. 4 to 71 has been left in lurch. If his name is included in OBC category, he would surely get appointment. Hence this Original Application.
4. The respondents No. 1 to 3 in their written have pleaded that when the applicant had submitted his application in response to advertisement issued in November, 2014, he belonged to general category and his caste was included in OBC category only in notification dated 26.3.2015, by which time even selection had been completed and as such his category could not be changed from general to OBC. The notification dated 26.3.2015 cannot be applied retrospectively. Support is also drawn from decision of Apex Court in the case of Marripati Nagaraja & Others Vs. Govt. of A.P. & Others, (Civil Appeal No. 4868 of 2007) decided on 12.10.2007. Placing reliance on 2012 (4) SCT 28, Simranjit Singh Tiwana Vs. State of Puinjab and Others, Subhashis Das Vs. W.B. State University of Health Sciences (Calcutta), 2012 (1) SCT 175; 2002 (2) Vol. 2 SCT 1093 Chandra Prakash Tiwari Vs. Shankuntla Shukla, (2009)5 SCC 515 K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines & others, (1996) 3 SCC 486, Madan Lal & Others Vs. State of J&K, (2008) 4 SCC 151, Dhanjay Malik & Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors, 1986 AIR (SC) 1043, Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Others, 1998 (1) SCT 631, Union of India Vs. N. Chandrasekharan, 1999 (1) SCT 656, Utkal University Vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi, it is argued that candidates, after participating in selection and having remained unsuccessful, cannot be allowed to turn around and claim that the selection was not proper as it would be barred by the principle of estoppels.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the material on the file.
6. The short controversy that needs to be sorted out in this O.A. is as to whether a candidate, belonging to a particular caste, who submits his application as a general category candidate, which is declared as an OBC category during or after the selection is over, can be allowed to change his category to latter.
7. It is not in dispute in this case that the notice for selection was issued during November, 2014 and at that point of time the Ramgarhia Caste was not included as an OBC category in the U.T. List. This caste was included in that category only in the notification dated 26.3.2015. The discrepancies list after checking of documents was uploaded on website on 21.4.2015 and final list of selected candidates was uploaded on 14.8.2015. The notification dated 26.3.2014 (A-4) does not indicate in any manner that the inclusion of synonymous and new castes is to be applied retrospectively. It is prospective only in nature and character and rightly so as number of persons belonging to different castes, included in notification dated 26.3.2015, could not have applied for their appointment under OBC category in response to notice issued in November, 2014. The notification has not been applied retrospectively and is to apply only prospectively and we find support in our view from the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Marripati Nagaraja (supra) in which it was held that ordinarily, in absence of any rule and that too a rule which was expressly given a retrospective effect, the rules prevailing as on the date of the notification are to be applied.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on a decision of the Honble High Court dated 14.08.2015 in CWP No.17735 of 2010 (Manish and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Others) and 5 other matters where after discussing the entire issue, regarding Sainis being an OBC category in U.T. Chandigarh, the Honble High Court has observed that It is found that only for the period from 14.09.2009 to 26.03.2015 Saini caste was kept at bay from claiming the benefit of reservation as an OBC category in the appointments made by U.T., Chandigarh. In our considered view, the benefit of reservation to Saini caste as interpreted by U.T. Chandigarh Administration on 23.12.2003 should have been extended up to 26.03.2015 when the permanent body took a decision to include that caste also as one of the OBC categories. This decision was followed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.060/00546/2015 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. Chandigarh Administration etc.) decided on 20.10.2015 holding that Saini caste has to be held eligible for benefit of reservation as OBC category up to 26.03.2015 and beyond when the permanent body took a decision to include that caste also as one of the OBC categories. The Bench further held that hence the contention of the respondents that on the date of submission of application for recruitment as TGT, Saini caste was not included as OBC category is without merit and is rejected. Relief claimed by the applicant is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the applicant as belonging to the OBC category and his claim for appointment as TGT may be considered in this light, if he is otherwise eligible for such appointment.
9. A perusal of the decision of the Honble High Court would clearly indicate that it was only for the period from 14.09.2009 to 26.03.2015 that the Saini caste was denied benefit of reservation as an OBC category in the appointments made by U.T., Chandigarh and prior thereto it was available. Thus, the Court held that the benefit of reservation to Saini caste as interpreted by U.T. Chandigarh Administration on 23.12.2003 should have been extended up to 26.03.2015 when the permanent body took a decision to include that caste also as one of the OBC categories and benefit granted by it to the concerned individuals was in exercise of extra-ordinary powers under articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and our hands are tight in this matter. Having held that the instructions / decision dated 26.3.2015 would not apply prospectively, we conclude that the applicant cannot be granted any benefit of OBC category as his caste came to be granted this status only on 26.3.2015 whereas he had submitted his application for relevant selection during 2014.
10. A plea that the caste of the applicant was included in the OBC list of Central Government would be of no help to him as to claim the benefit of OBC category, name of caste has to be there in both lists i.e. one issued by the Central Government and another by the concerned State Government.
11. In view of the above said discussion, this Original Application shall stand dismissed. No costs.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) (UDAY KUMAR VARMA) MEMBER (A) Place: Chandigarh Dated: 19.05.2016 HC* 10 (O.A.No.060/00899/2015- Vikram Singh Vs. UOI)