Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kapil Joshi vs Indian Institute Of Petroleum on 23 November, 2023
1
OA No.473 of 2022
Court No.1 (item No.15)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
CIRCUIT SITTING AT NAINITAL
( UTTARAKHAND)
OA No.0473/ 2022
This the 23rd day of November, 2023
Hon'ble Mr.Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr.Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Kapil Joshi (male) aged about 28 years S/o
Shri Om Prakash Joshi R/o Badrinath Chibber Marg,
Aryanagar, Dehradu, Uttarakhand.
-Applicant.
(Through Advocate: Mr.Dharmendra Tiwari)
Versus
1. Director, CSIR-Indian Institute of Petroleum ,
Mohkampur, Hardiwar Raod, Dehra Dun-241008,
Uttarakhand.
2. Administrative Officer, CSIR-Indian Institute of
Petroluem,
Mohkampur, Hardiwar Raod, Dehradun-241008,
Uttarkahand.
(Through Advocate: Present None)
O R D E R(Oral)
By Hon'ble Mr.Manish Garg, Member (J):-
In terms of the order dated 22.09.2023, the respondents were directed to address the arguments.
The learned counsel for the applicant is ready to 2 OA No.473 of 2022 Court No.1 (item No.15) address the arguments based on the pleadings available on records. We deem it appropriate to dispose of the matter.
2. The applicant seeks the following relief in the present OA:-
"(i) Quash order dated 07/08.04.2022 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Respondent No.2.
(ii) Issue directions commanding the respondents to issue officer appointment for the post of Technical Officer, against the Post Code IT-1 to the petitioner and allow him to join the post.
(iii) Any other relief, order or direction this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.
(iv) Award Costs."
3. He highlighted that he does not dispute the facts The facts as narrated by the applicant are that he was only the successful candidate in the selection process. He does not dispute the fact that the selection process was cancelled as a policy decision which is impugned herewith, the same reads as under;3 OA No.473 of 2022
Court No.1 (item No.15) No.3(541)2017-Pers April 07/08.2022 " Subject: Advt. No. 04/2018 Cancellation of post of Technical Officer advertised against Post Code IT-1 With reference to this Institute Advt. No. 04/2018 for recruitment to the post of Technical Officer advertised against Post Code IT-1 in information Technology Area for which Written Examination was held on 25.03.2021, it is hereby informed that the Post of Technical Officer advertised against Post Code IT -1 is cancelled due to administrative reason and will be re-advertised.
This is issued with the approval of the Director, CSIR-IIP.
(Administrative Officer)"
4. Relying upon the grounds in the present OA, he would contend that there is no plausible explanation as to why without assigning administrative reason, in a shortcut method, the entire selection process could be cancelled. Since after great labour he could qualify for the exam he was entitled to post of Technical Officer
5. Taking note of some submission made by the respondents in their counter affidavit, we notice the following facts:4 OA No.473 of 2022
Court No.1 (item No.15) "5. :That on receipt of the applications, the duly constituted Screening Committees screened the applications and list of Shortlisted and Rejected candidates were notified vide Notification No. 3(541)/2017- Pers dated 08.11.2019 and 10.02.2020, on CSIR -IIP website and on Notice Boards. The Petitioner Mr. Kapil Joshi also applied for Technical Officer Post against Post Code IT-1( Appl. No. Recruit/2018/07/241171).
6. That as per the recruitment rules, the shortlisted candidates were first invited for Trade /Skill Test Indo -
Swiss Training Centre, CSIR-CSIO, Chandigarh on 18th, 19th & 20th December2020.
7. That the result of Trade /Skill test in respect of candidates who qualified trade /Skill Test for appearing in Written Examination was notified on CSIR-IIP website and Notice Boards vide Notification No. 3(541) /2017- Pers dated 12.01.2021 . Amongst the qualified candidates, the Petitioner Mr. Kapil Joshi was also a candidate who qualified for Written Examination.
8. That thereafter, the Written Examination was conducted on 25.03.2021 at Dr. B. R. Admbedkar Training Centre of CSIR-IIP, Dehradun. The Petitioner Mr. Kapil Joshi also appeared for Written Examination for one post of Technical Officer against Post Code IT-1.
9. That the notification regarding details of marks obtained by the candidate in written examination were notified vide Notification No. 3 (541)/2017 dated 08.04.2021 on CSIR-IIP website in which candidates were informed that merit will be drawn on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in Paper -II & III.
10. That further, on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and approval of the Director, CSIR-IIP the result of Written Examination was declared vide notification No. 3 (541)/2017- Pers dated 02.06.2021, a true copy Notification No. 3(541) -Pers dated 02.06.2021 is annexed herewith as Annexure-5 to this counter affidavit /objection. According to the result, Mr. Kapil Joshi was selected and two candidates were waitlisted against Post Code IT for one Post of Technical Officer.
11. That in the meantime, one candidates namely Mr. Rahul Kumar (Appl. No. CSIR-IIP /04-2018/IT-1/0231), who was waitlisted -I against Post Code-1 submitted an RTI dated 04.06.2021 and sought copy of his OMR Sheet and Question paper Booklet and Answer Key. The same was provided to him."
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the pleadings available on 5 OA No.473 of 2022 Court No.1 (item No.15) record, we find that a conscious decision has been taken by the Competent Authority based on the decision of the Select Committee, wherein it was observed as under:
"21 That a meeting of the selection committee to give a clear recommendation for selection of Technical Officer in Gr.III(3) against Post Code IT-1 was held on 24th March, 2022 online through MS Team. The Committee recommended that the observations of the External Experty in rerspect of Paper -III for Post Code IT-1 are very critical and cannot be overlooked and unanimously decided that it will be appropriate to cancel the Post of Technical Officer as advertised against Post Code IT-1 of Advt. No. 04/2018 and may be re-
advertised . A true copy of Proceedings of Selection Committee No. 3(541)/2017-Pers dated 24.03.2022 is being filed herewith and marked as Anneure No. 10 to this objection/counter affidavit."
7. It is also noticeable fact that vide notification dated 07/08 April, 2022, the said post has already been cancelled. We find in similar circumstances in Civil Appeal No. 639-649 of 2021 in Sachin Kumar & Ors. Vs. D.S.S.S.B. & Ors. decided on 03.03.2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
57 Recruitment to public services must command public confidence. Persons who are recruited are intended to fulfil public functions associated with the functioning of the Government. Where the entire process is found to be flawed, its cancellation may undoubtedly cause hardship to a few who may not specifically be found to be 6 OA No.473 of 2022 Court No.1 (item No.15) involved in wrong-doing. But that is not sufficient to nullify the ultimate decision to cancel an examination where the nature of the wrong-doing cuts through the entire process so as to seriously impinge upon the legitimacy of the examinations which have been held for recruitment. Both the High Court and the Tribunal have, in our view, erred in laying exclusive focus on the report of the second Committee which was confined to the issue of impersonation. The report of the second Committee is only one facet of the matter. The Deputy Chief Minister was justified in going beyond it and ultimately recommending that the entire process should be cancelled on the basis of the findings which were arrived at in the report of the first Committee. Those findings do not stand obliterated nor has the Tribunal found any fault with those findings. In this view of the matter, both the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are unsustainable.
PART G 58 During the course of her submissions, the ASG has placed on record the fact that in the subsequent recruitment processes a number of the 281 candidates participated afresh. An age relaxation had been granted. In 2017, 133 out of 281 candidates participated and 13 were selected. In 2020, 87 out of the 281 participated, and 3 of them were short-listed. During the course of her submissions, the ASG has also submitted that even among the 281 candidates, it is not possible to conclude that all of them are untainted. In the view which we have taken it is not necessary to dwell on this aspect of the matter once the Court has arrived at the conclusion that the entire process was vitiated and that the cancellation was proper.
59 The Tribunal while setting aside the decision to cancel the recruitment process directed the Government to process the appointments of all 281 candidates who were found to be within the zone of selection though as a matter of fact only 6 of them had moved the Tribunal. After DSSSB and GNCTD moved the High Court in proceedings under Article 226 to challenge the decision of the 7 OA No.473 of 2022 Court No.1 (item No.15) Tribunal, intervention applications were moved by several candidates. These interventions were rejected by the High Court and we have also extracted from the order passed during the pendency of the proceedings on 15 December 2017 in para 20 of this judgment. The High Court while dismissing the applications for intervention noted that the cause of action had accrued on 15 March 2016 when the entire examination had been cancelled, in spite of which none of the intervening candidates had challenged the decision. The judgment of the High Court in the present case was delivered on 13 January 2020 and it is only thereafter that this Court has been moved under Article PART G 136 of the Constitution. Some of the petitioners who instituted Special Leave Petitions before this Court had not even moved applications for intervention before the High Court. Others did not pursue their remedies against the order of the High Court dated 15 December 2017 for over 2 years. They have taken no steps to challenge the decision for the cancellation of the examination. In view of the fact that we have upheld the submissions of DSSSB and GNCTD and proceed to set aside the judgment of the High Court, the SLPs filed by the candidates would have to stand rejected, in any event.
60 For the above reasons, we order and direct:
(i) The facts which have come to light during the course of the hearing of this batch of SLPs reflect on the serious flaws in the process which was conducted by DSSSB. DSSSB and GNCTD must now take adequate measures to ensure against the recurrence of such instances which erode the credibility of and public confidence in the recruitment process. We direct that a comprehensive exercise to re-visit the modalities and safeguards be carried out within a period of two months to ensure that the probity of the recruitment process in future is maintained;
(ii) The notification dated 15 March 2016 of GNCTD cancelling the Tier-I and Tier-II examinations held 8 OA No.473 of 2022 Court No.1 (item No.15) for recruitment to the post of Head Clerk [(Grade II (DASS)] under post code 90/09 is upheld;
(iii) The appeals filed by DSSSB (arising from Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11940 of 2020) and GNCTD (arising from Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12066 of 2020) are allowed;
(iv) The judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 13 January 2020 (and in consequence the judgment of the Tribunal) are set aside; and
(v) The companion appeals arising out of the SLPs 12 filed by the candidates stand dismissed.
61 There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of."
8. In view of the law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present OA is found to be devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/mk/