Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Samraat Singh vs Staff Selection Commission on 29 October, 2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH: CHANDIGARH
O.A. No.060/01203/17
Orders reserved on : 17.10.2019
Orders pronounced on : 29.10.2019
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J)
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Samraat Singh S/o Sh. Sushil Thakur, R/o 166-A, Kartar
Nagar, Gali No.4, Near New Model House, Jalandhar, Distt.
Jalandhar. Aged 32 years,
....Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Rohit Seth)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Government of
India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &
Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, New
Delhi, North Block,
2. Assistant Director, Staff Selection Commission (NWR),
Department of Personnel and Training, Kendriya Sadan,
Sector-9A, Chandigarh.
3. Deputy Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission
(NWR) Department of Personnel and Training, Kendriya
Sadan, Sector-9A, Chandigarh.
4. Harneet Kaur, Roll No.74405404725 through Assistant
Director, Staff Selection Commission (NWR)
Department of Personnel and Training, Kendriya Sadan,
Sector-9A, Chandigarh.
R/o House No.2234, Sector, 15-C, Chandigarh.
5. Rajan Kumar Sinha, Roll No.7440500871, through
Assistant Director, Staff Selection Commission (NWR)
Department of Personnel and Training, Kendriya Sadan,
Sector-9A, Chandigarh.
R/o Vill. Ghatkan, P.O. Dhangawan
P.S. - Kako, Distt. Jeherabad (Bihar) Pin:- 8004417.
.....Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Arvind Moudgil for R-1 to R-3
Shri Madan Mohan for R-4))
2
ORDER
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A):
By filing his OA, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) Quash Order dated 19.4.2017 and Order dated 07.06.2017 (Annexure A-1 & A-2) passed by respondent No.2 and along-with Final Select List published by respondents on 10.03.2017 (Annexure A-12) to the extent it relates to applicant and private respondents who are less meritorious than applicant.
ii) Quash appointment orders dated 24.07.2017 (Annexure A-3) vide which the respondent No.4 and 5 have been appointed as Investigator Grade II over and above the applicant who has more marks than them on account of passing of orders dated 19.04.2017 and 07.06.2017 declaring him in ineligibility for appointment in an illegal and arbitrary manner.
iii) Issue appropriate directions to the official respondents to consider candidature of the applicant and appoint him to the post of Investigator Grade-II, Labour Bureau Chandigarh (publish vide advertisement No.SSC/NWR-
03/2014) as per his merit in General Category from date other selected candidates are given appointment and grant him corresponding seniority, arrears of pay and consequential benefits benefits.
iv) Any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.
v) Cost of the application may also be awarded in favour of the applicant."
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that in the year 2014, an advertisement No.SSC/NWR-03/2014 was published vide which applications from eligible 3 candidates were invited for recruitment to the various posts including the post of Investigator Grade-II in Labour Bureau Chandigarh. Total number of vacancies were specified as 40 (with bifurcation as UR: 24, SC:4, ST:02 and OBC:10). 2.1 Applicant having Bachelor‟s Degree with Economics subject and B.Sc. Degree with Computer Science as Core subject. He applied for the post of Investigator Grade-II as a general category candidate and appeared in the written examination under Roll No.7440502911, which was held on 23.7.2016. As per result, the applicant obtained 88.75 marks and was called for document verification on 6/7.10.2016. During the selection process/document verification, he also submitted certificate of Diploma in Computer Application from ISO 9001:2008 certified Institute.
2.2 Subsequently, respondent authorities in consultation with the Labour Bureau Chandigarh decided that the candidates having Essential Qualification i.e. EQ-I and EQ-II in the following manner would be eligible for the post:-
"Essential Qualification-I:
Candidates who have studied any one subject of 04 subject (Statistics or Mathematics or Economics or Commerce) in Bachelor Degree fulfill EQ-1. Essential Qualification-II:
a) Candidates having Computer Certificate/Diploma Certificate in Computer Operation or Software issued by recognized Institution/Body like AICTE, UGC, 4 NIELIT, Central/State Govt/Union Territory Administration, fulfill EQ-II.
b) Candidates having any Degree or Higher Degree in Applied Fields of Computer/IT (including B.Tech with Computer Science/B.Sc. (Computer Science) BCA/MCA fulfill EQ-II.
c) Candidates who have studies computer/IT in their degree but computer/IT is not the core area, need an additional Certificate/Diploma in Computer Operation or Software.
2.3 According to the applicant, he is eligible as he has done B.Sc. Degree with subjects of Economics, Quantitative Techniques, Computer Science as Core subjects. He further alleged that he has also done Diploma in Computer Applications, which is done from ISO 9001:2008 Certified Institute. Even the University certifies that he has passed B.Sc. Degree (3 yeas duration) with Computer Science as one of the elective/core subject and he fulfills the eligibility criteria of Computer Literacy required in Govt. jobs. 2.4 However in the final Select List issued/published for General Category candidates dated 10.3.2017, the name of the applicant does not figure and the candidates lower in merit have been shown to be selected for the aforesaid post, but against the name of the applicant shown as rejected as he does not fulfill EQ-II.
52.5 Applicant further alleged that respondents no.4 and 5, who obtained 88.25 and 87.25 respectively, i.e., below the marks obtained by him, i.e., 88.75, have been selected and were given appointment letters.
2.6 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, applicant submitted his representation dated 15.3.2017 to the respondents and when the same was not decided by the respondents, he preferred OA No.60/356/2017 and this Tribunal vide Order dated 5.4.2017 disposed of the said with a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the said representation of the applicant. Thereafter respondent no.2 decided the said representation of the applicant vide order dated 19.4.2017 by rejecting the same on the same very ground as was mentioned in the result earlier published.
2.7 Then the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA No.060/00575/2017 challenging the said order dated 19.4.2017. However, in the meanwhile, applicant received a letter dated 23.5.2017 from the respondents informing him that speaking order to be issued in compliance of order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.060/00356/2017 is in the process and likely to be issued in second week of June 2017. Faced with the said situation, the applicant prayed for withdrawal of said OA with liberty to challenge any adverse 6 order, which might be passed in furtherance of communication dated 23.5.2017 and accordingly, the said OA was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for, vide order dated 26.5.2017.
2.8 Thereafter the respondent no.3 passed order dated 07.6.2017 in compliance of the aforesaid Order of this Tribunal, vide which the candidature of the applicant has been rejected.
2.9 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the respondents, the applicant has left with no option except to approach this Tribunal again for redressal of his grievances.
3. Pursuant to notice issued to the parties, they have filed their replies and the applicant has also filed rejoinder to the same.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleading available on record.
5. Counsel for the applicant submitted that rejection of the candidature of the applicant by the respondents on the ground that he did not fulfill the EQ-II is not sustainable in the eyes of law, illegal, unjust and arbitrary as he having Bachelor‟s Degree with Economics subject and B.Sc. Degree with Computer Science as Core subject and also the fact that he also obtained Diploma in Computer Application from C- NIT an ISO 9001:2008 certified Institute.
75.1 Counsel further submitted that applicant obtained higher marks than the respondent nos.4 and 5 but they were selected and appointed whereas his candidature was rejected on flimsy ground. Counsel further submitted that candidate at Serial no.14 - Shri Naveen Pandya was appointed despite having one 2 months computer course where as applicant with 3 year Degree Course in Computers has been excluded from zone of appointment as ineligible.
5.2 Counsel further submitted that official respondents cannot change the parameters as laid down for selection to the said post to the prejudice of the participants especially when selection process had already started and candidates have already participated in the selection process as in the present case parameters as laid down for appointment to the said post in question have been changed/altered after the candidates have already appeared in the written test which is evident from the fact that original advertisement was published on 15.11.2014 and the written examination was held on 23.7.2016 and the notice which alters the specifications or essential qualifications is published on 10.3.2017. Hence, the action of the respondents altering the essential parameters for appointment to the said post is arbitrary, erroneous and illegal.
85.3 In support of his contention, applicant placed reliance on the following decisions:-
(i) Indian Airlines Technical Assistants Union vs. The Chairman and Managing Director, Airlines, 1995 (1) SCT, page 2541;
(ii) A. Rama Rani vs. Secretary, (APREI) A.P. Residential Education Institute, Hyderabad, 1997 (1) SCT, page 768,
(iii) Shrijee Sales Corporation and another vs. Union of India, (1997) SCC 398,
(iv) R.S. Mittal vs. Union of India, 1995 (3) SCT 284,
(v) Food Corporation of India vs. M/s Kamdhenu Cattlefield Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71,
(vi) The Dist. Collector and Chairman Viciamgram vs. Tripura Sundari Devi, 1990 (4) SLR 237 SC,
(vii) Ashok Kumar Sharma vs/ Chander Shekhar, JT 1997(4) SC 99,
(viii) Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan, 1993 (2) SCT 279 SC.
(ix) K. Jayamohan v. State of Kerala, (1997) 5 SCC 170,
(x) Munna Roy vs. Union of India, (2000) 9 SCC 283.
(xi) The Manager Govt. Branch Press and others vs. D.B. Belliappa, AIR 1979 SC 429, and
(xii) K.K. Bhalla v/s State of M.P., 2006 (3) SCC 581.9
6. On the other hand, counsel for official respondents no.1 to 3 has submitted that while examining the representations received from the candidates against the list issued on 30.1.2016, it was observed that the clarifications/advice provided by the Labour Bureau were insufficient and more elaborate was required on Essential Qualification-II. To make the recruitment process fast, the SSC decided to shortlist the candidates for Written Exam on the basis of EQ-1 only with a view that EQ-II may be checked at the time of document verification after Written Exam. List of provisionally shortlisted candidates for exam on the basis of EQ-1 only also issued on 24.6.2016.
6.1 Counsel further submitted that since there were still some issues in interpretation/understanding of EQ-I and EQ- II and some more clarification were required, the SSC had a meeting with the Labour Bureau and consulted the matter with Labour Bureau, Chandigarh. Labour Bureau advised the candidates having Degree/Post Graduation in core area of computer software/operation (like B.Tech. in Computer Science Engineering or Information Technology, Bachelor of Computer Applications, Master of Computer application, B.Sc. in Computer Science) do not need an additional certificate in computer software/operation but the candidates not having computer software/operation as core area in their 10 degree or post graduation would need an additional certificate/Diploma in Computer Software or operation from recognized Institute. Counsel further submitted that eligibility of the candidates was decided on the basis of clarification/interpretation taken in meeting with Labour Bureau on 18.1.2017 which reads as under:-
"Essential Qualification-I:
Candidates who have studied any one subject of 04 subject - Statistics, Mathematics, Economics & Commerce in his/her Bachelor Degree or higher degree, even in one semester, were eligible.
Essential Qualification-II:
(a) Candidates having Computer Certificate/Diploma Certificate in Computer Operation or Software issued by recognized Institution/Body like AICTE, UGC, NIELIT, Central/State Govt./Union Territory Administration, are eligible.
(b) Candidates having any Degree or Higher Degrees in Applied Fields of Computer/IT (including B.Tech with Computer Science/B.Sc.(Computer Science)/BCA/MCA are eligible.
(c) Candidates having Degree including Degrees in Applied fields in which Computer/IT is not the core area, shall need an additional Certificate/Diploma in Computer Operation or Software.
(d) Certificate/Diploma in which it is not possible to make out the „Recognition of Institutions‟ and „Duration of the Course‟, it is required to assess whether the Course imparts operational knowledge of Computer and candidates were required to produce a certificate to 11 prove that the said institute is a recognized Institution from Central/State Government/Union Territory Administration or an accrediting Agency thereof.
6.2 Counsel further submitted that applicant had also appeared in document verification s he was considered eligible as per EQ-I and his eligibility like all others as per EQ-II was yet to be checked. Applicant submitted copies of documents in support of his eligibility at the time of document verification. His eligibility as per EQ-I and EQ-II was considered in accordance with the criteria mentioned in para 6.1 above, which were applied to all candidates uniformly and in a transparent manner. After examining the documents submitted by the applicant and available in his dossier, it was found that he fulfills EQ-I but he does not fulfill EQ-II as his Diploma in Computer Application from C- NIT Computer Education, Jalandhar is not issued by any recognized institute/body like AICTE, UGC NIELIT or recognized by any Central Govt. or State Govt./U.T. Admn./or any accrediting agency thereof. Counsel further emphasized that from the Diploma Certificate submitted by the applicant, it was not clear regarding recognition status and the applicant was asked to produce a certificate/documentary evidence to prove that the said Institute is a Recognized Institute from Central/State Govt./U.T. Administration or accreditation Agency. As this Diploma Certificate does not 12 indicate recognition of any Central Govt. or State Govt./U.T. Admn./or any accrediting agency thereof. Counsel further submitted that there are thousands of private firms mushrooming everywhere which issue such certificate/diploma like that of the applicant on their own without any recognition from Government agencies and such certificates/diplomas were not acceptable as EQ-II as it has clearly prescribed that these should be from Recognized Institute.
6.3 Counsel also stated that only eligible candidates as per EQ-I and EQ-II mentioned in advertisement and in accordance with advice/consultation from Labour Bureau were considered for final selection based on merit of written examination. Result of the recruitment was declared on 10.3.2017 and the applicant sent a representation which was replied by the Commission on 19.4.2017 clearly mentioning the reason for non-selection of the applicant. Thereafter he filed OA 060/00356/2017 before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Order dated 5.4.2017 disposed of the said OA with direction to respondents to consider and decide the indicated representation of the applicant by passing a speaking order. The Commission passed a detailed and reasoned speaking order dated 7.6.2017 addressing all the issues and grievances raised by the applicant. 13 6.4 Counsel further submitted that in the said speaking order, it has also been mentioned that applicant submitted a copy of letters issued by Guru Nanak Dev University but the same was got by him after declaration of final result and he never submitted these letters of Guru Nanak Dev University either during documents verification or through email dated 26.1.2017. Moreover, these letters were ambiguous and not acceptable as they did not specifically state about EQ-II but informed a decision of Academic Council to the applicant that Computer Science studied at Graduation level in B.Sc. be recognized much higher than „O‟ level course. 6.5 Counsel further argued that the applicant‟s main argument is that he had studied a subject Computer Science in his B.Sc. Degree and therefore fulfilled EQ-II is not acceptable as the Essential Qualifications mentioned in the Advertisements prescribe a Certificate/Diploma in Computer Software or operation from Recognized Institute and Indenting Organization i.e. Labour Bureau had categorically emphasized this requirement for being eligible as per EQ-II. He does not fulfill EQ-II as his B.Sc. degree is not in core area of Computer Software or Operation like degrees of B.Tech (Computer Science Engineering or Information Technology), Bachelor of Computer Applications, Master of Computer applications, B.Sc. (Computer Science), B.Sc. (Information 14 Technology). He had studied Computer Science as a subject only along with other subject, i.e., English, Punjabi, Economics and Quantitative Techniques in his General B.Sc. degree. Such candidates were required to produce addition certificate/diploma in Computer Software/Operation from recognized Institute and the diploma submitted by the applicant was from C-NIT Computer Education which was not recognized institute from Central Govt. or State Govt./U.T. Admn./or any accrediting agency thereof. As such the applicant was not eligible and therefore, the question of his being more meritorious does not arise.
6.6 Counsel further submitted that the role of SSC is to undertake recruitment as per Recruitment Rules framed by the Indenting Department and as per the Essential Qualification mentioned in the RRs. The SSC consulted Labour Bureau for clarity regarding EQs and acted as per advice/clarification by Labour Bureau. All the parameters were applied uniformly and transparently on all applicants by uploading each and every information on website.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings available on record, it is observed that so far as contention of the applicant that one Shri Naveen Pandya at Serial No.14 was appointed despite having one 2 months computer course is concerned, since the said Naveen 15 Pandya is not made party in this case, this Tribunal cannot accept his said contention. As the Hon‟ble Apex Court in catena of cases, including the case of J.S. Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil Appeal No.3299/2011) decided on 19.04.2011, had already held that :
"32. No order can be passed behind the back of a person adversely affecting him and such an order if passed, is liable to be ignored being not binding on such a party as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The principles enshrined in the proviso to Order I Rule 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide that impleadment of a necessary party is mandatory and in case of non-joinder of necessary party, the plaintiff/petitioner may not be entitled for the relief sought by him. The litigant has to ensure that the necessary party is before the Court, be it a plaintiff or a defendant, otherwise the proceedings will have to fail. In Service Jurisprudence if an unsuccessful candidate challenges the selection process, he is bound to implead at least some of the successful candidates in representative capacity. In case the services of a person is terminated and another person is appointed at his place, in order to get relief, the person appointed at his place is the necessary party for the reason that even if the plaintiff/petitioner succeeds, it may not be possible for the Court to issue direction to accommodate the petitioner without removing the person who filled up the post manned by plaintiff/petitioner. (Vide: Prabodh Verma & Ors. etc. etc. v. State of U.P. & Ors. etc., AIR 1985 SC 167; Ishwar Singh & Ors. v. Kuldip Singh & Ors., 1995 (supp) 1 SCC 179; Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 768; State of Assam v Union of India & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 408;
and Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2613)."
8. Further, with regard to the contention of the applicant that he has submitted his B.Sc. Degree with Computer Science as a core subject in all three years, he should be 16 considered as having eligibility qualifications for selection is concerned, we note that he had also submitted a certificate of Diploma in Computer Application. Meaning thereby, the applicant knew very well that his B.Sc. Degree is not sufficient to be eligible as per EQ-II. As such he has submitted his Diploma in Computer Application. However, it is relevant to mention that said Diploma was issued to him after the cut off date of submission of the application for the said post, as the cut off date was 15.11.2014 whereas the said certificate of Diploma in Computer Application was issued on 20.11.2014. As such the said qualification was not obtained by the applicant on or before the cut-off date.
9. Further as pointed out by the respondents, the said Diploma in Computer Application obtained by the applicant from C-NIT is not indicative of the fact that the same was obtained from recognized Institution/Body like AICTE, UGC, NIELIT, Central/State Govt./Union Territory Administration. The applicant has not placed on record any document in his pleadings to show that the said Certificate of Diploma in Computer Application was obtained from the said recognized Institute but he has only stated that the said Certificate was issued by an Institute which is an ISO 9001:2008 Certified Institute. Further reliance placed by the applicant on the letters issued by Guru Nanak Dev University in support of his claim is not relevant as the said University is not competent authority to give such clarification as the clarification in such 17 matter has to be obtained from the expert body like AICTE or UGC, which is not the case in hand.
10. Merely the assertion of the applicant that he has obtained higher marks than private respondent nos.4 and 5 would not confer any right upon him to be appointed to the said post. Since his candidature was found to be ineligible as per the EQ-II, the question of his being more meritorious does not arise. Moreover, reliance placed by the applicant on the aforesaid cases, as referred to in para 5.3 above, are not relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case as in this case, the respondents have clearly established that the applicant does not fulfil the requisite EQ-II for the post in question.
11. So far as contention of the applicant that official respondents have changed the parameters after start of the selection process of the post in question is concerned, it is observed that EQ-II was not changed but only clarification with regard to recognisation of the qualifications have been sought and clarified by the Intending Department. As such it cannot be said that the rule of the game has been changed. Moreover, the advice/clarification was applied not only in the case of the applicant but also in the matter of all other candidates who participated uniformly and in a transparent manner by the respondents.
18
12. In view of the above position and for the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any merit in this case and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Nita Chowdhury) (Sanjeev Kaushik)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/