Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
P K Senthalakshmi vs M/O Human Resource Development on 2 April, 2025
1 TA No.3/3018 &
MA 477/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
TA No.3/2018
AND
MA NO.477/2022
Dated this the 2nd day of April, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER(J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
Mrs. P.K. Seethalakshmi,
No.4, 4th Cross,
Krishna Nagar,
Lawspet, Puducherry
presently at No.15-B, Blaise Nagar,
Annai Street, Lawspet, Puducherry. .. Applicant
By Advocate Mr. T. Srinivasa Mohan
Vs.
1. Union of India rep by its
rep by its Secretary,
Ministry of HRD,
Department of School Education & Literacy,
New Delhi.
2. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,
By its Commissioner,
(An autonomous organization under Min of HRD),
Dept of School Education & Literacy,
A-28, Kailash Colony,
New Delhi.
3. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,
By its Deputy Commissioner,
Hyderabad Region,
1-1-10/3, S.P. Road,
Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
2 TA No.3/3018 &
MA 477/2022
4. N. Arumugham,
20/7, Rangarajapuram Main Road,
Kodambakkam, Chennai .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. Su Srinivasan SCGSC for R1
Mr. C. Prasana Venkatesan for R.2 & 3
Mr. N. Arumugham for R.4
3 TA No.3/3018 &
MA 477/2022
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) Originally the applicant filed W.P. No.20809 of 2013 before the Hon'ble Madras High Court. As the Navodaya Vidyalaya Saniti notified under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, and the relief sought is to be adjudicated before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Hon'ble Madras High Court, by its order, dated 27.11.2017, transferred the said W.P. No.20809 of 2013 to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench. Thus the said W.P was numbered as T.A. No.3 of 2018.
2. The relief prayed for by the applicant is as follows:
"....... to issue any appropriate direction/order, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent relating to the undated select list for the post of regional language teachers in so far as it related to TGT-Tamil and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to appoint the applicant to the post of TGT- Tamil and pass such other suitable orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice".
3. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
The Applicant claims that the 3rd respondent called for applications to recruit Regional Language Teachers, including for Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, with two Tamil language vacancies at Karaikal and Andaman.
The recruitment process included a written test and interview. The 4 TA No.3/3018 & MA 477/2022 applicant attended the written test on 25.11.2012, secured 1st place with 82 marks out of 140, while the 4th respondent secured 5th place with 70 marks. A total of 11 candidates passed the written test and 9 were shortlisted and called for an interview on 26.04.2013, which was worth 10 marks, making the total possible score 150 marks. After the interview, no merit list was published. However, an undated list of selected candidates appeared on the 3rd respondent's website, where the 4th respondent was listed as selected for the Tamil TGT post. The posting was at Nicobar, with a joining deadline of 05.08.2013. Although two posts were advertised, only one was filled. The list did not explain the selection process or criteria for the 4th respondent. The applicant made a representation on 09.07.2013 but received no response, prompting the applicant to file Writ Petition WP No.20809/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court, which was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal, as stated in the 1 st paragraph of the order.
4. The applicant's counsel argues that the 3rd respondent had no basis for appointing the 4th respondent, as the 4th respondent ranked 4th in the written test merit list. Even with the interview marks added, the 4th respondent would still be 2 marks behind the applicant, assuming the applicant received no interview marks. The counsel further contends that 5 TA No.3/3018 & MA 477/2022 as the post was not reserved for any category, the applicant, being first in the written test and with a significant margin over the next candidate, should have been selected, and there is no justification for overlooking the applicant.
5. The counsel further emphasized that the post was not reserved for any specific category, meaning a General candidate like the applicant should not have been excluded. Given that the applicant ranked first in the written test and with the next candidate scoring 8 marks less, the applicant could not have been overtaken by any other person in the final list as well, after the interview. It is therefore argued that in all probability the applicant should have been selected for the post in question.
6. The counsel further argued that, although the 3rd respondent advertised two Tamil regional language posts, only one has been filled, with no explanation provided for the unfilled post. He also pointed out that the respondents have presented conflicting arguments before different forums. Before the Hon'ble High Court, they stated that the vacancy was reduced to accommodate surplus staff, while in a subsequent affidavit to this Tribunal, they claimed the posts were reserved for categories other 6 TA No.3/3018 & MA 477/2022 than the General category. The counsel argued that since the notification did not exclude the General category, the respondents cannot, after conducting the examination and publishing the merit list, claim that General category candidates are ineligible.
7. The counsel referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court (Order dated 07.11.2024, reported in 2024 INSC 847), where the Court held that the state cannot arbitrarily deny appointments when vacancies exist and must justify not filling vacancies after the recruitment process. He further pointed out that the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal, vide order on 03.07.2013 was followed by the respondents rejecting the applicant's request for accommodation at Puducherry only on 28.10.2013, after the interview process had concluded. As a result, the counsel sought relief in the present OA.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the applicant's submission. He argued that the applicant participated in the selection process without challenging the terms and conditions outlined in the advertisement. According to the law established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant does not have an indefeasible right to appointment merely because her name appears on the select list. 7 TA No.3/3018 & MA 477/2022
9. He further explained that the recruitment notification advertised two vacancies for TGT - Tamil in the Hyderabad Region under the reserved category (one for SC and one for OBC). However, due to subsequent developments, including the closure of the Tamil stream at JNV Nahan (Himachal Pradesh), one OBC category vacancy was declared surplus, leaving only one vacancy under the SC category. The counsel also referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Shankaran Dash vs. UOI (1991) 3 SCC 47, which states that candidates included in the select list do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment.
10. He further submitted that filling vacancies beyond those advertised violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as held in the case of State of UP vs. Rajkumar Sharma (2006) 3 SCC 330. He argued that the applicant cannot claim appointment solely because her name appeared on the select list, even if vacancies remain unfilled. The counsel drew our attention to the relevant paragraph of the aforementioned judgment, which reads as follows:
"Selectees cannot claim the appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidates' name in the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled and the concerned candidates cannot claim that they have 8 TA No.3/3018 & MA 477/2022 been given a hostile discrimination. (See:Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (AIR 1991 SC 1612), Smt. Asha Kaul and Another v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and another (1993 (2) SCC 573), Union of India v. S.S. Uppal(AIR 1996 SC 2346), Hanman Prasad v. Union of India (1996 (10) SCC 742), Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (AIR 1997 SC 2280), Syndicate Bank & Ors. v. Shankar Paul & Ors.(AIR 1997 SC 3091), Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra and Ors.(1997 (10) SCC 264), Punjab State Electricity Board v. Seema (1999 SCC (L&S) 629);All India SC & ST Employees Association v. A Arthur Jeen, (AIR 2001 SC 1851), Vinodan T. v. University of Kalikut, (2002 (4) SCC
726), S. Renuka v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
(AIR 2002 SC 1523), and Baitariani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar & Ors. (AIR 2000 SC 4248).
11. He further submitted that the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal, in OA No. 163/2007 (reported in 2008 SCC OnLine CAT 238), held that candidates included in the select list cannot claim an appointment as a matter of right, as inclusion in the list does not confer any enforceable right to appointment. He referred to the relevant portion of the judgment, which follows the principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited above. Based on this, he prayed for the dismissal of the OA.
12. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for all the parties. perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record. We have also gone through the judgments relied upon by the respective parties.
9 TA No.3/3018 &MA 477/2022
13. In determining the essential principle that once the recruitment process begins, the State or its instrumentality cannot alter the 'rules of the game' regarding eligibility criteria, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court (Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2013), delivered its judgment on 07.11.2024, taking into account all the case laws cited by the respondents' counsel. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portions of the judgment here to address the issue at hand in the current TA:
"12. To effectively analyses and adjudicate upon the questions referred, we would divide our discussion into following parts:
(a) When the recruitment process commences and comes to an end;
(b) Basis of the doctrine that 'rules of the game' must not be changed during the course of the game, or after the game is played;
(c) Whether the decision in K. Manjusree (supra) is at variance with earlier precedents on the subject;
(d) Whether the above doctrine applies with equal strictness qua method or procedure for selection as it does qua eligibility criteria;
(e) Whether procedure for selection stipulated by Act or Rules framed either under the proviso to Article 30910 of the Constitution or a Statute could be given a go-bye;
(f) Whether appointment could be denied by change in the eligibility criteria after the game is played.
xxxxxxxxxx 10 TA No.3/3018 & MA 477/2022
15. The principle of fairness in action requires that public authorities be held accountable for their representations. Good administration requires public authorities to act in a predictable manner and honour the promises made or practices established unless there is good reason not to do so. xxxxxxxxxx
41. Thus, in light of the decision in Shankarsan Das(supra), a candidate placed in the select list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even if vacancies are available. Similar was the view taken by this Court in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) where against 15 vacancies only top 7 from the select list were appointed. But there is a caveat. The State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate. Therefore, when a challenge is laid to State's action in respect of denying appointment to a selected candidate, the burden is on the State to justify its decision for not making appointment from the Select List.
xxxxxxxxxx
42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms:
(1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies;
(2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, whichis not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-
arbitrariness;
(3) The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra).Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas 11 TA No.3/3018 & MA 477/2022 K.Manjusree(supra) deals with the right to be placed in the Select List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues;
(4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/ non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. (5) Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps; (6) Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list."
14. Applying the decision cited supra to the present case, it is clear that the Advertisement Notification, dated nil, does not specify any reservation for the Reserved or unreserved categories. Given this, the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the Select List, as outlined at the start of the recruitment process, cannot be altered midway unless explicitly allow by the extant Rules or the advertisement itself, which must align with those Rules. It is also important to note that the respondent's position before the Hon'ble High Court, as well as before us, is inconsistent. 12 TA No.3/3018 & MA 477/2022
15. There is no dispute that the applicant is ranked first in the merit list. As this is an educational institution, it requires the best-qualified teachers, and the applicant is the top candidate, which is indisputable. The respondent's main argument is that the applicant cannot claim appointment solely based on the examination and interview results. However, this is not a case of "no appointment" at all. The merit list has been acted upon, and appointments have been made based on it. Therefore, the principle argued by the respondents does not apply in this case.
16. Furthermore, despite notice, the 4th respondent has not appeared. In these circumstances, we find that the applicant has made a valid case. Consequently, the TA is allowed, and we direct the 3rd respondent to appoint the applicant to the post of TGT-Tamil at any of the branches of the 2nd and 3rd respondents' educational institutions. This process must be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. In view of the above direction given, MA No.477 of 2022 filed for a direction is closed. No order as to costs.
(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
mas 02 .04.2025
13 TA No.3/3018 &
MA 477/2022