Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Charan Singh Naruka vs M/O Defence on 25 May, 2022
1
OA No. 752/2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 752/2013
Order reserved on 05.05.2022
DATE OF ORDER: 25.05.2022
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Charan Singh Naruka S/o Shri Balbir Singh Naruka,
aged about 23 years, R/o Village Chomu, Post Office
Kerwawal Via Malakheda District Alwar-304006 (Raj.).
....Applicant
Ms. Kavita Bhati, counsel for applicant.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Additional DG AE, G-6, D-1, Wing, Sena Bhawan,
Gate No. 4, Integrated Head Quarter of Ministry
of Defence (Army), New Delhi-110 011.
3. Commanding Officer, 262, Transit Camp, Delhi
Cant-900106.
.... Respondents
Shri Anand Sharma, counsel for respondents.
ORDER
Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
"In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, the applicant pray that 2 OA No. 752/2013 this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow this application and may also be pleased to call for the relevant record and peruse the same if so pleases and by issue of appropriate order or direction the actions of the respondents illegally rejecting application of applicant for appointment to the post of cook as intimated vide letter dated 02.07.2012 and 14.06.2012 issued by respondent no. 2 and 3 respectively (annexure-A/1) may kindly quashed and set aside and respondents may be directed to appoint the applicant on the said posts with all consequential benefits at par with the persons appointed in the pursuance of advertisement issued in June 2011."
2. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that he has passed his secondary examination from Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer in the year 2006. He is a bonafide resident of Village Chomu, Tehsil & District, Alwar and has a domicile Certificate issued by Tehsildar, Alwar. He has a good moral character and is never involved in criminal case or any kind of illegal activities or irregularities. He has a hobby of cooking foods and has worked in army messes as a Cook and has also worked as a trainee cook at Hotel Imperial, New Delhi. He possesses a certificate dated 17.06.2011 of experience of five years issued by office of Additional Director General of Signal Intelligence General Staff Branch, Army Headquarters Sena Bhawan, New Delhi. As per advertisement dated 11-17 June 2011 for direct 3 OA No. 752/2013 recruitment of cooks in 262 Transit Camp in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with GP of Rs. 1900 with other admissible allowances and there were total 5 vacancies. Since he was fulfilling the required criteria and was eligible, he applied for the said post. He received a call letter dated 21.07.2011 issued by respondent no. 3 and in the said letter, it was mentioned about written, practical test and interview to be conducted on 03.07.2011 and was advised to report to 262, Transit Camp, Delhi Cantt. along with original documents. After verification of documents, he was allowed to appear in written and practical test. He was told that the selection committee would issue appointment letters on his home address. Since nothing was heard from respondents, applicant sent a letter under RTI to Central Public Information Officer, Indian Army for providing information with regard to his selection. He received a letter dated 31.05.2012 whereby respondent no. 3 had to provide certain information to respondent no. 2 but since said information was not provided, the same clearly proves the intention of respondent no.3 about the illegalities committed in the appointments. Thereafter, applicant received the impugned order dated 02.07.2012, Annexure A/1, whereby it was informed that his 4 OA No. 752/2013 application seeking appointment to the post of Cook has been rejected. Since the reasons mentioned for rejection are totally illegal, arbitrary and capricious, he has approached this Tribunal for quashing the select list of Cooks and that respondents be directed to appoint the applicant as Cook.
3. After issue of notices, respondents have filed their reply stating that as per the vacancies published in employment news of 11-17 June 2011 for the posts of Cook, total 461 applications were received and only 28 candidates were found eligible to appear in the test. Accordingly call letters were sent and only 24 candidates reported for test on 31.07.2011. The Board proceeding for the same was forwarded to ADG Mov D vide 262 Transit Camp Letter No. 3734/Civ/A dtd 5th Aug., 2011 for scrutiny and verification. The Board proceedings were returned by observing certain discrepancies in the documents submitted by the individuals including the applicant. Hence, the said proceedings of the Board was cancelled and was re- ordered vide letter dated 26th Aug. 2011 and eligible candidates were called for as per para 6 of the said letter. In the case of the applicant, there were discrepancies observed vide para 3(2) of ADO Mov D 5 OA No. 752/2013 letter No. A/71591/ 262TC/ Mov D dtd. 26th Aug 2011, which reads as under: -
"(a) Experience Certificate says he was employed for past 5 years. His age being 21, he must have been 16 years of age when initially employed. Does not seem to be correct.
(b) The Character certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, Alwar seems to have been forged regarding date by pasting a piece of paper and getting it photocopies by putting 05 Jun 2011."
Thus, in view of the above discrepancies observed vide para 3(2) of ADO Mov D Letter No. A/ 71591/ 262TC/ Mov D dated 26th Aug., 2011, the application of the applicant was rejected and call letter was not forwarded to him for re-test. It is further submitted that the selection process has been completed and the vacancies have been filled. Therefore, the present O.A. is not maintainable and deserves to be rejected.
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder denying the submissions made by the respondents.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6OA No. 752/2013
6. The applicant as well as the respondents have reiterated their submissions as made earlier.
7. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant in response to the advertisement published in employment news dated 11-17 June 2011 for the post of Cook, being fulfilling the eligibility criteria had applied for the same. In all 461 applications were received and from those applications, only 28 candidates were found eligible to appear in the test for the said post. Call letters were sent to the eligible candidates to appear for written test and interview. Only 24 candidates reported for the test conducted on 31 July, 2011. Thereafter, the said proceedings were sent to ADG Mov D for scrutiny and documents verification vide letter dated 05.08.2011 (Annexure R/2). The said board proceedings were returned by observing certain discrepancies in the documents submitted by the individuals including the applicant.
8. We have noticed the discrepancies, which were observed vide para 3 (2) of ADO Mov D letter No. A/ 71591/ 262TC/ Mov D dated 26th August, 2011, (Annexure R/3), are as under:-
7OA No. 752/2013
"3. The following discrepancies have been observed in the documents submitted by the individuals who have been recommended for selection as Cooks by the Board as shown against their name:-
Merit Name Discrepancy
No.
General
1. xxx xxx
2. Charan Singh (a) Experience Certificate
Naruka says he was employed for
past 5 years. His age being
21, he must have been 16
years of age when initially
employed. Does not seem
to be correct.
(b) The character
certificate issued by Gram
Panchayat, Alwar seems to
have been forged
regarding date by pasting a
piece of paper and getting
it photocopies by putting
05 Jun 2011."
We have seen that the aforesaid discrepancies/ reasons for rejecting the application of the applicant were intimated to the applicant vide information dated 14.06.2012 through letter dated 02.07.2012 (Annexure A/1) under Right to Information Act, 2005.
9. We have also noted that the respondents have taken a stand that due to rush during the test overwriting of date in the character certificate issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat was missed out due to oversight and the original certificate was not retained by respondent no. 3. Also respondents stated that no information for the selection has been given to 8 OA No. 752/2013 the candidates during the test, therefore, the contention of the applicant that he was selected and his name was placed in the select list of 5 candidates is totally wrong and misconceived. Only original mark sheet with roll no. has been retained by the respondents and no other documents are retained by them. Due to discrepancies, board proceedings forwarded vide letter dated 05.08.2011 were cancelled and was re-ordered. As discrepancies were found in documents in the case of the applicant, his candidature was rejected. We have also been informed that the selection process is already completed and vacancies are duly filled.
10. It is a trite law that a candidate has no right to any particular post. Even if he is selected, the same does not create any right to be appointed. Since discrepancies were found by the respondents in the documents of the applicant and respondents have rejected the candidature of the applicant, we are not going to interfere in the reasons for rejection of the candidature mainly for the reason that the selection was of the year 2011 and selection process is already completed and vacancies have already been filled a decade ago. There is no interim relief in favour of the 9 OA No. 752/2013 applicant. Thus, in absence of any vacancies now in the year 2022, no purpose will be served to investigate in the reasons for rejecting the candidature of the applicant. We also do not agree with the grounds raised by the applicant as the same are not sustainable.
11. In view of the observations and discussions made herein-above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned letter dated 02.07.2012 (Annexure A/1) and the letter/ information dated 14.06.2012 (annexed with Annexure A/1) as well as in the selection process which is over nearly a decade ago. Thus, the Original Application being devoid of any merits deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /nlk/