Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Mohd Sagir vs Union Of India on 22 August, 2025
O.A. No.330/390 of 2011
(Reserved on 13.08.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 22nd day of August, 2025
Original Application No.390 of 2011
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Mohd. Sagir, S/o Sri Chiragudddin, a/a 21 years, Occupation Driving Self
own Truck UP 80 F 9224, R/o 75, Tagore Road Cantt. Kanpur Nagar
....Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Qazi Vakil Ahmad
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
Government of India, New Delhi
2. Chairman/Director General, Ordnance Factories Board, 10-A,
Shahid Khudi Ram Bose Raod, Kolkata-1
3. General Manager, Ordnance Equipment Factor, Phool Bagh,
Kanpur
4. Joint General Manager, Ordnance Equipment Factor, Kanpur
5. Sri M.Z. Sarwar, Joint General Manager/Chairman of Selection
PUNIT KUMAR
Board, Ordnance Equipment Factory, Kanpur
MISHRA
6. Sandeep Kumar through General Manager, Ordnance Equipment
Factory, Phool Bagh, Kanpur
...... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Arvind Singh
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Shri S.M. Ali, holding brief of Shri Qazi Vakil Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing of the case.
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
I. To quash the select list dated Nil (Annexure-1) Page 1 of 7 O.A. No.330/390 of 2011 II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents establishment to finalize the selection as per Rule and award the mark of skill test of driving conducted on 07.02.2011 and appoint the applicant to the post of Fire Engine Driver under the OBC Category with all consequential benefits.
III. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The case of the applicant as narrated in Original Application is that an Advertisement was floated by the respondents on 30.01.2010 for filling up the post of Fire Engine Driver. The applicant being eligible applied for the said post under 'Other Backward category' (OBC). Thereafter, the applicant appeared in the written examination and qualified in the said exam. Thereafter, all the candidates, who qualified in the written test, was called for skill test of driving. The applicant along with other candidates appeared in the skill test, wherein as per the applicant, none of the candidate, except the applicant could drive the vehicle provided for the skill test, but the respondents have selected one PUNIT KUMAR candidate namely Sandeep Kumar-respondent-6. MISHRA 3.1 Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the applicant represented on 08.02.2011 before the Chairman/Director General, Ordnance Factor Board, Kolkata, but no heed was paid. Hence, the applicant approached before High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing a writ petition being Writ A No.12186/2011, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2011 on the ground of alternative remedy available to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant approached this Tribunal, by way of this Original Application.
4. On the other hand, counter reply was filed on 02.09.2011 from the side of official respondents, wherein it has been stated that in view of the advertisement, separate confidential Boards of Officers were nominated for conducting the tests/examination. Physical Measurement Page 2 of 7 O.A. No.330/390 of 2011 test was conducted on 01.02.2011 under the Chairmanship of Dr. A.S. Mondal, Principal Medical Officer (SG). Endurance test was conducted on 02.02.2011 to 03.02.2011 under the Chairmanship of Shri G.C. Aron, Joint General Manager, Written Test was conducted on 04.02.2011 and Skill Test was conducted on 07.02.2011 under the Chairmanship of Shri M.Z. Sarwar, Joint General Manager. Evaluation of answer sheets of the written examination was done under the Chairmanship of Shri P.K. Mahapatra, Joint General Manager.
4.1 52 candidates were called for the different tests for Fire Engine Driver 'A' and out of which only 13 candidates had reported for examination and one candidate was found not fit in the physical measurement test due to less weight. In the Endurance Test, out of 12 candidates, three candidates were not qualified. Thereafter, written test was conducted on 04.02.2011, wherein all the nine candidates appeared including the applicant and the applicant had obtained only 24 marks, whereas the respondent-6 obtained 32 marks and other candidates namely Barendra Pal, Shri Chand Babu, Shri Tara Chand and Shri Dinesh PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Pal Singh secured 29 marks, 23 marks, 20 marks and 16 marks respectively.
4.2 In the call letters, it was clearly mentioned that 'the skill test on driving would be the same/similar to the test as are being conducted by the RTOs for giving Driving Licence and number of candidates will be called for the skill test in the ratio of 1:5 i.e. five times the number of vacancies. Accordingly, 5 candidates, including the applicant were called for skill test and out of five candidates, three were declared pass including the applicant. However, based on the marks obtained in the written examination by the candidates, the respondent-6 was selected on the said post under OBC category as he secured 1st position in the merit list. The applicant secured third position and there was only one post under Page 3 of 7 O.A. No.330/390 of 2011 OBC Category and as such, he was not selected. The allegations of the applicant were baseless and false. Hence, Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
5. In reply, rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant on 12.12.2011, wherein, reiterating the averments as made in Original Application.
6. Mr. S.M. Ali, learned proxy counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no reservation for any category in the sanction letter dated 26.08.2009, but the respondents issued Advertisement for filling the one post under OBC and one post under Scheduled Caste category. The marks were given in written examination, but no marks have been given in skill test to the any candidate only for helping the respondent-6 for appointment. The entire process of skill test was not proper as per Guidelines of the Department. The persons, who were present at the time of skill test, filed an affidavit in favour of the applicant. The applicant was issued driving licence in the year, 2007 and since then, he is driving the heavy vehicle without any compliant whatsoever. PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA 6.1 He further submits that at the time of skill test, more than 100 persons were present and they are ready to state the correct fact that the vehicle driven by the selected candidate was stopped 4 to 5 time and also several times he hit 'Stambh' during the exam, meaning thereby the candidate who was selected/passed in this exam had actually failed, but under pressure, he was forcibly passed and selected, whereas, the applicant did not have his vehicle stall even once, nor did he knock down any 'Stambh', and he completed the exam within the given time limit and in this regard, four persons have already given affidavit, which is at Annexure-6 to this Original Application. Therefore, a failed candidate- respondent-6 in skill test, was appointed and as such, a direction may be Page 4 of 7 O.A. No.330/390 of 2011 given upon the respondents to appoint the applicant in place of respondent-6.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicant obtained less marks than the last selected candidate and as such, he was rightly not appointed by the respondents. The allegations of the applicant are baseless as there is no evidence in this regard. The applicant after appearing in the recruitment process, challenging the selection process, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. Hence, instant Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have considered the submissions so raised by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
9. From perusal of the records, it appears that the applicant appeared in the exam pursuant to the Notification dated 30.01.2010 for the post of Fire Engine Driver and after being declared unsuccessful, approached this Tribunal, challenging the result. As per the result, the PUNIT KUMAR applicant also passed the skill test, but he was not in the merit list as he MISHRA obtained only 24 marks, whereas the respondent-6 obtained 32 marks and as such, he was rightly selected. The respondent-6 obtained more marks than the applicant. Admittedly, the result was published on the basis of marks obtained in written examination only as no marks were allotted to any candidate in the skill test, which is for all the candidates, participating in the recruitment process. Now, the applicant appeared in the recruitment process and after having been not selected, challenged the recruitment process.
10. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357, the Apex Court after referring to catena of judgments made an observation that having participated in the selection process without objection, precludes the candidate to challenge the process at a later stage. Page 5 of 7
O.A. No.330/390 of 2011
11. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100, the Apex Court held that 'it is well settled principle that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same'.
12. Further, no document such as Notification dated 30.01.2010, has been annexed by the learned counsel for the applicant, which shows that any marks have been given/awarded in the skill test. The Prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service pertains to the field of policy and is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the Employer and not the third person, who have sworn affidavits in favour of the applicant. It is not open to the Courts to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria. The observation of the Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi and Others vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others, reported in 2003 (2) SCC 632, reads as under:-
"10. ... Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature PUNIT KUMAR of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of MISHRA qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate." (Refer: V.K. Sood vs. Secretary, Civil Aviation AIR 1993 SC 2285)
13. In Chandigarh Administration vs. Usha Kheterpal Waie and others4, Supreme Court, in paragraph 22, observed thus:
"22. It is now well settled that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. The courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the Page 6 of 7 O.A. No.330/390 of 2011 power of the authority concerned so long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of the Constitution, statute and rules. [See J. Rangaswamy vs. Govt. of A.P. (1990) 1 SCC 288 and P.U. Joshi vs. Accountant General (2003) 2 SCC 632]. In the absence of any rules, under Article 309 or statute, the appellant had the power to appoint under its general power of administration and prescribe such eligibility criteria as it is considered to be necessary and reasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prescription of Ph.D. is unreasonable."
14. In view of the above discussions, no relief is permissible to the applicant. Therefore, the instant Original Application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merit.
15. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
16. No order as to costs.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial)
PM/
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
Page 7 of 7