Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
M Karthikeyan vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 31 October, 2023
1 OA 310/00608/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA 310/00608/2015
Dated Tuesday the 31st day of October Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J)
&
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A)
M.Karthikeyan,
S/o.S.Murugaiyan,
No.3, Dr.Ramadass Street,
II Cross, Lawspet,
Puducherry - 605 008. ... Applicant
By Advocate M/s. M. Gnanasekar
Vs
Union of India Represented by
1. The Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Puducherry,
Secretariat,
Puducherry-605 001.
2. The Under Secretary to Government (Home),
Government of Puducherry,
Secretariat,
Puducherry-605 001.
3. The Director General of Police,
Police Department,
Puducherry.
4. The Inspector General of Police,
Police Department,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry.
2 OA 310/00608/2015
5. The Superintendent of Police (HQ),
Police Department,
Puducherry.
6. S.Velou, (Roll No.100955),
S/o. Chokkalingam,
No.9, Mariamman Kovil Street,
Ottampalayam,
Puducherry.
7. C.Mary Francisca, (Roll No.102469),
D/o.Chinnappan,
No.90, 4th Cross,
J.J.Nagar,
Moolakaulam,
Puducherry.
8. K.Rajasekar (Roll No.100457),
No.2, Plot No.78, Main Road,
Manakula Vinayakar Nagar,
Puducherry.
9.E.Prabu, (Roll No.101519)
S/o.Elumalai,
No.69, ECR, Chennakalapet,
Puducherry.
10. D.Murugan, (Roll No.102626),
S/o.Dhanraju,
Ayyanar Kovil Street,
P.K.Puram,
Ayyanarkuppam,
Puducherry.
11. N.Sandosh (Roll No.104700)
S/o.Nayanasamy,
No.18, 1st Cross, Kamarajar Street,
V.P.Sing Nagar,
Shanmugapuram,
Puducherry. ... Respondents
By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa
3 OA 310/00608/2015
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:
"To direct the respondents to call for the records relating to impugned order vide No. 9- 2/A2/Estt.I(A)/Pol/2014 dated 09.12.2014 passed by the 5th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to appoint the applicant for the post of Sub Inspector of Police and accommodate him at suitable place, with all monetary and non-monetary benefits with effect from 07.02.2011 the date on which when other selected candidates were given appointment, by setting aside the appointment given to the respondent Nos. 6 to 11, in pursuant of the selection list vide No. 8850/Pol.A2/Estt-I/2011 dated 07.02.2011 published by the 5th respondent, those who have selected and given appointment for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in pursuance of advertisement vide No. 8850/A2/Estt.I/Pol./2010 dated 18.11.2010 issued by the 5th respondent and pass such further or other orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. "
2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell is as under:
The applicant had applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police against the notification, dt. 18.11.2010, issued by the 5 th respondent. The applicant completed the first phase of recruitment process, i.e. Physical Standard on 29.01.2011 and the applicant participated in the second phase of recruitment process, i.e., written test on 06.02.2011. But the question 4 OA 310/00608/2015 papers for written examination were not supported by Tamil version and the same was set only in English. On 07.03.2011, the 5th respondent published section list in which the last male candidate one V. Jayagurunathan (102660), was selected against the MBC (Most Backward Class) has secured 122 and the cut off marks is 122. However, in the said written test, the Applicant had secured totally 120 Marks ie in Paper-I, he secured 52 Marks & in Paper-II, he secured 68 Marks.
3. The Applicant along with some other candidates jointly filed Original Application before this Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A. No. 345 of 2011 and thereby they have challenged the said Recruitment on the grounds that written examination was conducted in violation of Standing Order No. 2/2002 dated 29-07-2002, as Question Papers for written Examination were not supported by Tamil Version. As of now the said O.A. is pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal. In the month of February, 2014, the applicant came to know that some of the selected candidates does not possess required educational qualification as per cut-off date and, therefore his chance of being selected to the said post of Sub-Inspector was affected. Therefore, immediately, he preferred an Application under Right to Information Act, 2005, to the Public Information Officer, Police Department, Puducherry, to ascertain the factual position. On 06-06-2014, the PIO (Public Information Officer) has supplied reply and it is stated that the respondent Nos. 5 to 10 have not studied 12 Std. and besides they 5 OA 310/00608/2015 possess "Degree from Open University System of Education and also 11th respondent, namely, N. Sandosh (Roll No. 104700), who has been selected for the said Post as against SC (Scheduled Caste) Quota as if he secured totally 120 Marks in both papers (Paper-1 & Paper-II). But, he secured totally 110 Marks only in both papers (Paper-I & Paper-II) i.e., in Paper-I he secured 52 Marks & in Paper-II he secured 58 Marks hence in both papers (Paper-I & Paper-II) he secured only 110 Marks.
4. On 30-07-2014, the Applicant had submitted his detailed representation, dated 30-07-2014, to Respondent Nos 4 & 5, whereby he requested them to remove the said unqualified persons and, consequently, requested them to consider his name for the post of Sub Inspector of Police. The Applicant filed Original Application before this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 310/1302/2014 for seeking direction "directing the respondents to consider and take appropriate action on Applicant's representation dated 30-07-2014 and thereby direct them to remove the unqualified persons, from the selection list, vide No. 8550/pol/A2/Estt- 1/2011 dated 07-02-2011 published by the 5th respondent, those who have selected for the post of Sub Inspector of Police in pursuance of advertisement vide No 8850/A2/Estt I/Pol/2010 dated 18-11-2010 issued by the 5th respondent and consequently direct the respondents to consider the Applicant for the said post of Sub-Inspector of Police". On 01-09-2014, this Hon'ble Tribunal had disposed of the said OA with 6 OA 310/00608/2015 direction to the 4th & 5th respondents to consider the representation of the Applicant, dated 30-07-2014, in accordance with law and as per rules and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. On 10-09-2014, the Applicant forwarded the said copy of the order along with his representation, dated 30-07-2014, to the respondent department through proper channel on 16- 09-2014. On 09-12-2014, the 5th respondent, herein, namely, the Superintendent of Police (HQ), Puducherry, passed the impugned order whereby he rejected the Applicant's claim/request for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. Hence this OA.
5. After notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed a detailed reply statement and opposed the relief on the ground that the recruitment was done only in English and not in Tamil as per the prescription in the standing order which is periodically issued by the Inspector General of Police. Further, as per the recruitment rules, the educational qualification required for direct Sub Inspector of Police is any degree from a recognised University and this was also mentioned in the notification issued for direct recruitment. Further, based on the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in N. Ramesh Vs. Sibi Madan Gabrel (2008) 3 MLJ 255, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Annamalai University Vs Secretary to Govt., Information and Tourism Department (2009) 4 SCC 7 OA 310/00608/2015 590 and the Judgment, dt. 12.07.2013, of the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, in the matter of Secterary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Wing, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai Vs Madhavan Pillai (WA No. 1372 of 2013), it is clear that not only the degree awarded by a Open University to the candidate who passed +2 examination is valid, but also the degree awarded to persons who did not pass +2 Examination, but were admitted to degree course, after passing the entrance examination conducted by the University, is valid, as per clause 1 of Regulation 2 of 1985 UGC Regulations. Hence, the three individuals mentioned in the OA, who have passed the degree through the Open University System, have passed the entrance examination conducted by the respective universities and were, thereby, awarded their respective degrees and, therefore, there is no point of un-qualifying as far as educational qualification is concerned. Hence, the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the OA.
6. Heard both sides. Perused the OA and other connected records.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the earlier round of litigation, the applicant had challenged the notification wherein specific grievance was made that the examination was conducted in English not in Tamil and that the issue has attained finality. This Tribunal had dismissed the OA of the applicant. Subsequently, after receipt of the information through RTI, the applicant has submitted his representation 8 OA 310/00608/2015 and the same had been rejected by the concerned authority on 09.12.2014, by a detailed order. Now, the applicant is challenging the same in the present OA on the ground that the persons who have not obtained degree by proper mode as well as women who belong to MBC had been given more relaxation which is against the notification.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently opposed the proposed relief on the ground of constructive res judiciata. The applicant had approached this Hon'ble Tribunal earlier. He could not make it in the said selection process, as the applicant is below the cut-off marks. The persons who have been arrayed as respondents are much above him in the cut off marks. As far as their qualification is concerned, they have secured the same. The applicant, being a male candidate cannot compete with women candidate. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the OA is barred by constructive res judicata as, on this issue, the law is already settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
9. It is to be noted that the applicant who had participated in the said selection process conducted in the year 2010, approached this Tribunal in OA 345/2011 and after considering the merit in the matter this Tribunal had dismissed the OA. The applicant challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Upon hearing and on merits, the Hon'ble High Court confirmed the order of this Tribunal. The applicant 9 OA 310/00608/2015 challenged the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the SLP is still pending and sub judice.
10. Subsequently, after receipt of information under RTI, the applicant has submitted his representation to the authority which has been dealt with by the respondent authority, in detail, vide their order, dated 09.12.2014. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed in the present OA. It is to be noted that the issue in respect of qualification obtained through the open university has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. The private respondents have qualified and they had made out their merit above the cut-off and, hence, they have been selected and appointed. Moreover, in respect of women category belonging to MBC, it is up to the Government to consider them for upgrade. Therefore, the applicant does not have any locus to challenge these appointments. Moreover, the OA is barred by constructive res judicata and on the ground of locus standi. OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Member (A) Member (J)
31.10.2023
AS