Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Jatin Sharma vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 31 May, 2024
1
OA No. 490/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 490/2020
Order reserved on :02.05.2024
Date of order:31.05.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A)
Jatin Samra. Son of Shri M. L. Gupta, Aged about 32 years,
Resident of 111/239 Ramtirth Marg, Vijaypath,
Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.) the applicant submitted
application form for appointment as a Technician Group-C
post. Mobile No. 9414869029.
...Applicant
(By Adv: Shri S.S. Ola)
Versus
1. Union of India through Director., Indian Veterinary
Research Institute, Izat Nagar (U.P.) India 243122.
2. The Secretary, Indian Council of Agriculture
Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. 110001.
...Respondents.
(By Adv: Dr. Saugath Roy)
2
OA No. 490/2020
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)
The Applicant has filed the present Original Application upon being aggrieved by the action of the Respondents - of not operating fully the Reserve List for the UR Category declared on 23.02.2019 for the post of Technician (T-1) at Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI), Izatnagar and its Regional Stations/Centres beyond the S.No.23 thereof - and thereby purportedly depriving the Applicant, who was at S.No.25 of the said Reserve List for the UR Category, from his opportunity of document verification and consequent appointment, if found eligible.
2. The matrix of facts relevant to the present case emerged from the pleadings as follows briefly. The Applicant applied for the recruitment to the temporary posts (likely to be permanent) of Technician (T-1) at Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI), Izatnagar and its Regional Stations/Centres in response to Advertisement No.1/2016/MRDPC for the posts of Category-I & II in Technical Service issued by the Respondents, whereby inter alia 102 posts of Technician (T-1) - including 10 posts for Ex-servicemen were notified with 08.03.2016 as the 3 OA No. 490/2020 last date for receiving applications. Later, he had appeared at the common written test on 01.07.2018 conducted in totally online computer-based mode by the Agriculture Scientist Recruitment Board, (ASRB),New Delhi. Vide F.No.2-1/2015-MRDPC(Part-II) dated 23.02.2019 of the IVRI, the Amended Provisional Result of the Technician (T-
1) Examination conducted by ASRB on 01.07.2018 was declared, inter alia including a Provisional Select List of 47 candidates and a Provisional Reserve List of 75 candidates for UR Category - where the name of Applicant figured at S.No.25 in the Provisional Reserve List for UR category.
3. It was also mentioned in the said Provisional Result dated 23.02.2019 - that it shall be treated as final upon removal of discrepancies, if any, for which representations/objections were allowed up to 11.03.2019 ; and that it did not constitute an offer of appointment which depended inter alia on the verification of the documents/certificates/testimonials in respect of essential qualifications etc. In due course, the IVRI had proceeded to call through successive Notices the candidates on the Select List and Reserve List in seriatim for document verification. Eventually, through Notice dated 03.01.2020, 4 OA No. 490/2020 the Respondents had lastly called certain candidates from the Reserve List for the post of Technician (T-1)for document verification on 20.01.2020. The last candidate of the UR Category called was one Shri Sudhir Sharma - who figured at S. No.23 of the said List in the Result dated 23.02.2019.
4. The Applicant had mentioned that based upon the information obtained by him later vide the impugned communication dated 03.10.2020 of the Respondents in reply to his Online RTI application dated 06.09.2020, it had emerged that in all 44 candidates had joined as Technician (T-1) against UR category, which implied that seven more posts of Technician (T-1) of UR category had remained unfilled with reference to 51 such posts that were initially advertised. On the other hand, candidates after S.No.23 on the Reserve List of UR Category dated 23.02.2019 had also remained to be called for document verification and for consequent appointment. Thus, it was the Applicant's case that since more vacant posts had remained after giving sufficient opportunity and time for document verification and ascertaining the genuineness of the eligibility of the candidates on the Select List and then the Reserve List up 5 OA No. 490/2020 to S.No.23, he should have been also called for document verification towards appointment in the post of Technician (T-1) for UR Category, as his name had figured immediately thereafter at S.No.25 of the related Reserve List. Also, the Applicant had grievance against the information provided under the RTI Act on 03.10.2020 that it was not permissible to continue the recruitment process after 22.02.2020 as per Rules, since the prescribed validity period of Waiting / Reserve Lists was one year from the date of recommendations of the Selection Committee ; by contending that the validity of the Reserve List had to be reckoned for one year not from the declaration of the Provisional Result on 23.02.2019, but for one year from 11.03.2019, i.e. the date up to which representations/objections were allowed for removal of any discrepancies. Consequently, it was contended by the Applicant that adequate time was available before the Reserve List containing his name would have elapsed ;and thus he had a right to be called by the Respondents within that period for document verification and subsequent appointment. In support, the learned Counsel for the Applicant cited the Order/Judgement dated 27.11.2018 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No. 11360- 6 OA No. 490/2020 11363 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 29668-29671 of 2017) in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap &Ors. Vs. South East Central Railway &Ors ; with Civil Appeal No. 11364 of 2018 (SLP(C) No.6165 of 2018) - which was taken on record.
5. Hence, the Applicant had prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned letter dated 03.10.2020. Further, it had been prayed that the Respondents be directed to give him the opportunity to report for checking the genuineness of his eligibility for the post of Technician(T-1) vide necessary document verification ; and also further that Respondents be directed to give him appointment on the post of Technician (T-1) against the advertisement of 2016, if found eligible after document verification, with all consequential benefits.
6. On the other hand, the Respondents vide their Reply had denied the contentions of the Applicant, other than the matters of fact. They have drawn attention to the related provisions of the guidelines of the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) vide OM dated 29.03.2004 to reiterate that the validity of the recommendation by the screening 7 OA No. 490/2020 committee for appointment to posts in autonomous/statutory organizations is restricted to a ceiling of one year, commencing from the date on which the screening committee made its recommendations, which came to be published on 23.02.2019. It was also averred that as such the validity of the Reserve List was also for one year only ; and that in the present case, that period had expired on 22.02.2020 ; and also that they had conducted the process of document verification and appointment throughout this period by giving adequate opportunities to the enlisted candidates in seriatim ; and as such the Applicant could not be called before the expiry of the said period of validity of the relevant Reserve List.
7. It was also averred by the Respondents that the Applicant, who was not included in the main Select List for UR category consisting of 47 candidates, but was enlisted at S.No.25 of the Reserve List, did not have any right for consideration of appointment. To support the same, the learned counsel for the Respondents had during arguments before us cited the authority of the Judgment dated 19.05.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of State of Karnataka &Ors. Vs. Smt. Bharathi S. [Civil Appeal No. 8 OA No. 490/2020 3062 of 2023 arising out of SLP (C) No. 12635 of 2020], [LAWS (SC)-2023-5-97], which has been taken on record.
8. We have gone through the contentions of the parties in their pleadings and have heard the arguments of the parties. We have noted thus, firstly that it has emerged that the substantive facts of the case have not been controverted among the parties - in that the date of the Amended Provisional Result based on the Examination conducted by the ASRB being 23.02.2019 ; incorporation of the Select List including 47 candidates and the preparation of a Reserve List of 75 candidates in the UR category for the post of Technician (T-1) ; and the operation in seriatim of the Select List and then the Reserve List on non-acceptance/non-appearance of the candidates on these Lists have all been agreed to by the parties. However, regarding the inferred last date of the validity of the Select and Reserve Lists there was a disagreement - while this was deemed to be 22.02.2020 by the Respondents by reckoning one year from 23.02.2019, i.e. the date of the declaration of the Amended Provisional Result ; the Applicant had contended that the validity of the Reserve List had to be reckoned upto 10.03.2019, i.e. 9 OA No. 490/2020 for one year from 11.03.2019 up to which representations/objections were allowed for removal of any discrepancies in the said Select or Reserve Lists. However, in this regard, we note that while allowing the opportunity for pointing out discrepancies, if any, by 11.03.2019 vide the notification of the said Amended / Provisional Result of the Technician (T-1) Examination on 23.02.2019, it was expressly stated that in case no valid discrepancy was pointed out, the result declared by the said notification dated 23.02.2019 shall be treated as final. Further, nothing is on record to substantiate that any valid discrepancy had indeed been pointed out during the window for the same. Thus, we view that the Result declared on 23.02.2019 hence stood to be the Final Result - and the validity of the Select and Reserve Lists in that Final Result dated 23.02.2019 being deemed to be 22.02.2019 by the Respondents did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
9. Thereupon, the crux of the case of the Applicant that remained was that he had a right to be called within the period of validity of the said Reserve List for document verification and subsequent appointment by the Respondents, instead of ceasing the recruitment process 10 OA No. 490/2020 which eventually had occurred while calling the last set of candidates to appear on 20.01.2020. The reliefs sought by the Applicant have also been looked at. It is firstly found that the Applicant had prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned letter dated 03.10.2020 of the Assistant Administrative Officer (MRDPC), IVRI, Izatnagar. The said impugned letter is found to be the response to the RTI query registered online by the Applicant on 06.09.2020 and purports to provide the factual information as available on records of the Respondents related to the Recruitment Process of 2016 for the post of Technician (T-1). As this is not an original administrative Order by itself, but had merely furnished the information available on record, the prayer for quashing of the same is not found tenable.
10. Further, regarding the Recruitment Process of 2016 itself for the post of Technician (T-1), it is clear that the filling-up / management of vacancies in any posts is squarely in the domain of the administrative authorities concerned. We would advert to the law laid down in the matter on the authority of the Orders/Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a catena of related cases - that the interference by the Courts/Tribunals cannot be done lightly 11 OA No. 490/2020 as no legally enforceable rights are conferred, unless the process is vitiated by mala fides or made in violation of any statutory provision. In the present case, for the recruitment process already conducted -the operation in seriatim of the Select List and then the Reserve List on non-acceptance/non-appearance of the candidates of the Select List had been accepted by the parties. Apart from the Respondents' express averment that the procedure as prescribed by the DOPT for maintaining/operating the Reserve Panel/List had been strictly adhered to, any mala fide or violation had neither been alleged by the Applicant nor established otherwise for the process already conducted ;and thus the same cannot be said to suffer from mala fide or violation of statutory provisions. Hence no interference with the same is called for by this Tribunal.
11. However, the issue raised by the Applicant pertains to alleged non-action on part of the Respondents, by discontinuation of the Recruitment Process subsequent to the document verification for the Candidates on the Reserve List last scheduled on 20.01.2020. In this context, the Applicant while reckoning the last date of validity of the Reserve List as 10.03.2019 (and not 22.02.2020 as 12 OA No. 490/2020 reckoned by the Respondents) had claimed that he had a right to be called for document verification and consequent appointment - as sufficient time for validity of the Reserve List as well as unfilled vacancies were still available for the post of Technician (T-1) ; and as the Applicant was enlisted immediately after the last Candidate on the Reserve List who had been so called by the Respondents. In light of the law laid down in this regard - that the interference by the Courts / Tribunals cannot be done lightly as no legally enforceable rights are conferred, unless the process is vitiated by mala fides or made in violation of any statutory provision-it was deemed necessary to assess whether any legally enforceable right was created for the Applicant in the circumstances of existence of unfilled vacancies and a Reserve List for the post of Technician (T-1) ; and of the Applicant being enlisted immediately after the last Candidate who had been so called by the Respondents previously from the Reserve List.
12. In this regard, the parties in the present O.A. had placed reliance upon different Orders & Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which had been taken on record, to support their own contrasting contentions. We have 13 OA No. 490/2020 carefully perused the authority of these precedent Judgments and Orders including that dated 27.11.2018 of in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap &Ors. Vs. SEC Railway &Ors(supra) ; and that dated 19.05.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka &Ors. Vs. Smt. Bharathi S.[LAWS (SC)-2023-5-97] (supra) cited before us. At the outset, we noted that the authority of the Order and Judgment cited by the Applicant was dated 27.11.2018 ; and was heard by three Hon'ble Judges - and the appeals were allowed through a common Order on part of two Hon'ble Judges whereas vide a separate disagreeing judgment, the appeals were dismissed by one Hon'ble Judge, the copy of which had not been presented before us. On the other hand, the authority of the comparatively recent Order and Judgment dated 19.05.2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the Respondents was decided by a two Member Bench of Hon'ble Judges unanimously. In terms of the substantive content, the ratio of both these was the consistent position of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the decision to fill all the vacancies from the Additional List is left to the wisdom of the State ; and yet the State cannot act arbitrarily and its action will be subject to judicial review. Moreover, it is found that the 14 OA No. 490/2020 Order and Judgment dated 27.11.2018 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap &Ors. Vs. SEC Railway &Ors (supra) had been issued in the context of inaction / ignoring on part of the Respondents to operate the Additional List.
13. In the present matter, the documents on the record of the case before us through the pleadings of the parties, although not exhaustively compiled, still show that after declaration of the Result on 23.02.2019, the process for document verification of candidates of UR Category for the post of Technician (T-1) had been conducted by the Respondents - at first giving opportunity to the candidates on the Select List - inter alia vide Notice dated 02.05.2019 to appear for Document Verification on 21.05.2019. Further, it emerged from the record so before us that upon non-appearance of 11 candidates to be considered for the UR Category posts, the Respondents had proceeded to call the 11 candidates on the Reserve List in seriatim to be considered for the still vacant UR Category posts vide Notice dated 08.07.2019 advising those candidates to appear for Document Verification on 20.07.2019. It would emerge further that for filling up the posts inter alia of UR 15 OA No. 490/2020 Category still vacant thereafter, the Respondents had given Notice dated 04.10.2019 to further candidates on the Reserve List in seriatim, to appear for document verification on 21.10.2019. It would also emerge even further that for filling up the posts inter alia of UR Category still vacant thereafter, the Respondents had given Notice dated 03.01.2020 to further candidates on the Reserve List in seriatim, to appear for document verification on 20.01.2020 - the last candidate from the Reserve List for posts of UR Category called thereby happened to be one Shri Sudhir Sharma, enlisted at S.No.23 thereof.
14. From this, it emerged that the Respondents were not inactive nor had ignored the vacancy position and the Select/Reserve Lists but instead made continuous efforts iteratively ; while giving adequate time / opportunity to the enlisted candidates in seriatim for document verification and consequent appointment. The lapsing of the validity of the afore-mentioned Select and Reserve Lists was not thus attributable to any inaction or arbitrary action on part of the Respondents, but had emerged to have happened in due course of time during which adequate and procedurally correct steps were taken in several iterations by the 16 OA No. 490/2020 Respondents. Hence, due to the facts being materially different, the authority of the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap &Ors. Vs. SEC Railway &Ors (supra) cited by the Applicant could not be deemed applicable to the present case. Moreover, while not prescribed precisely, the time taken at each of the previous iteration was found to be at least 2 months between the dates of Document Verification of new/successive batch of candidates. Thus, the assumption on part of the Applicant that the Respondents had enough time within the validity period of the Reserve List - which the Applicant had claimed to be 10.03.2020, but the Respondents had held to be 20.02.2020 that had been found to be the correct position - to carry out another iteration of the Document Verification even after that done last on 21.01.2020 ; and that the validity period of the Reserve List in the present case had elapsed due to the Respondents' inaction or malafides or arbitrariness on their part did not emerge to be reasonable and justifiable.
15. On the other hand, the Respondents had referred to the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment dated 19.05.2023 in the case of State of Karnataka &Ors. Vs. Smt. Bharathi S.[LAWS (SC)-2023-5-97] (supra) and cited its relevant 17 OA No. 490/2020 observations inter alia the law as laid down in this regard vide a catena of previous Judgements and Orders as were also incorporated therein - stated as hereunder briefly:
" 9. ... ... Mere publication of the Additional List does not create any right to be appointed. There is no such mandate in the Rule. ... ...
10. The position of law is also clear. In Subha B. Nair &Ors. v. State of Kerala &Ors., which has also been relied upon by the State, it has been held that:
"8. A decision on the part of an employer whether to fill up the existing vacancies or not is within its domain. On this limited ground in the absence of discrimination or arbitrariness, a writ court ordinarily would not interfere in such matters.
9. Similar view has also been expressed by this Court in K. Thulaseedharan v. Kerala State Public Service Commission, [(2007) 6 SCC 190].
19. The question as to whether there existed 7 vacancies or 16 vacancies in the aforementioned situation loses all significance. We would assume that as per the requisition, 9 more vacancies could be filled up but it is trite that if the employer takes a policy decision not to fill up any existing vacancy, only because a person's name is found in the select list, the same by itself would be a ground to compel the Bank to fill them up."
Further, in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, this Court held that:
"7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. 18 OA No. 490/2020 Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post.
Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.
This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220; Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 268 or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 122."
11. The position that emerges from the above decisions is that the duty to fill up vacancies from the Additional List (waiting list) can arise only on the basis of a mandatory rule. In the absence of such a mandate, the decision to fill all the vacancies from the Additional List, is left to the wisdom of the State. We will however add that State cannot act arbitrarily and its action will be subject to judicial review.
12. Returning to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed an error in assuming the existence of a right to be appointed on the basis of Entry 66 in the Schedule to the 1967 Rules. We have seen that the Rule 19 OA No. 490/2020 by itself does not create any right. Such a position is also not supported by any principle of law. ... ...
13. In conclusion, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed an error in directing the State to give effect to the Additional List and appoint the respondent within three months from the date of the order. Under these circumstances, the Civil Appeal No. 3062 of 2023 filed by the State of Karnataka stands allowed and the decision of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 51904 of 2019 dated 31.01.2020 is set aside. ... ... "
16. Thus, the correct and consistent position of law that emerged on the basis of a catena of Judgments and Orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard was - that mere publication of the Additional / Reserve List does not create any right to be appointed unless there is such a mandate in the Rule ; that a decision on the part of an employer whether to fill up the existing vacancies or not is within its domain and in the absence of discrimination or arbitrariness, a writ court ordinarily would not interfere in such matters on this limited ground ; that it would be trite if the employer takes a policy decision not to fill up any existing vacancy, only because a person's name is found in the select list, the same by itself would be a ground to compel the Employer to fill it up ; and that it was not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found 20 OA No. 490/2020 fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post and unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies; although the State cannot act arbitrarily and its action will be subject to judicial review.
17. Upon applying the principles of law thus laid down to the present O.A. before us, it could not be seen from the pleadings and arguments before us that there was any statutory Rule or decision to fill-up all the UR Category vacancies advertised in 2016 from the Select or Reserve Lists prepared. Moreover, while it was factual that not all the vacancies advertised in 2016 could be filled-up at the end of the process for recruitment of Technician (T-1), the Applicant's allegation that such an outcome was due to underlying non-action and malafides on part of the Respondents was found to be stated without any express substantiation. The foregoing Paras had traversed the 21 OA No. 490/2020 position in this regard and found that the said allegation could not be sustained on the basis of facts before us.
18. We have gone through the contentions of the parties in their pleadings and in particular carefully perused and applied the authority of the precedent Judgments - that dated 27.11.2018 of in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap &Ors. Vs. SEC Railway &Ors (supra) ; and that dated 19.05.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka &Ors. Vs. Smt. Bharathi S. [LAWS (SC)-2023- 5-97] (supra) - cited before us; and have heard the arguments of the parties. On a detailed examination and analysis of the same as foregoing, we found that the applicable guidelines and procedures were substantively followed by the Respondents and the filling-up of vacancies had been in accordance with the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, without any discrimination. Moreover, the allegation that the unfilled vacancies in relation to the advertised posts of Technician (T-1) for 2016 was driven by non-action or malafides or arbitrariness on part of the Respondents, was found to be unsubstantiated. Therefore, we hold that no right was created for the Applicant to be appointed to the 22 OA No. 490/2020 unfilled vacancies of the post of Technician (T-1)advertised in 2016, on the basis of his name figuring at S.No.25 in the Reserve List of UR Category.
19. In the conspectus of the foregoing and as per the analysis and observations made above, the Applicant had failed to prove that the procedure followed by the respondents was arbitrary or malafide or that it had suffered from any infirmity or illegality or that the Applicant had an indefeasible right to be called for document verification towards appointment in the post of Technician (T-1) in pursuance of the Advertisement of 2016. The challenge on part of Applicant is thus found to be untenable in light of the relevant facts and the principles of law in this regard. Hence, the impugned Orders and actions of the Respondents do not call for any interference or further directions by this Tribunal.
20.Therefore, the present O.A. is not found to succeed on merits and is hence disallowed. No order as to costs.
(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi) Member (A) Member (J) !Vv