Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Smt.C.R.Asha Devi vs Union Of India on 21 August, 2015
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
o;? CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 247 of 2014
Friday this the 21st day of August, 2015
CORAM
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mrs. P. Gopinath, Administrative Member
Smt.C.R.Asha Devi, aged 46 years
W/o Mukundan Menon presently working as
Project Scientist, Centre for Marine Living Resources &
Ecology (CMLRE), Ministry of Earth Sciences,
Block-C, VI Floor,
Kendriya Bhavan, PB No. 5415, CEPZ PO,
Cochin-682037 residing at Planchery Madhom,
Kannankulangara, Tripunithura,
Ernakulam-682301. . . . . Applicant
(By Advocate Ms. P.V. Radhamani)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government
of India, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Prithvi Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi. 110 003.
2. The Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of
Earth Sciences, Prithvi Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
3. The director (Estt), Ministry of Earth Sciences, Prithvi Bhawan,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
4. The Director, Centre for Marine Living Resources & Econology
(CMLRE), Block-C, VI Floor, Kendriya Bhawan, PB No.5415,
CEPZ Po, Cochin-682037.
5. Mr.Kari Ramu, Scientist D, Integrated Coastal and Marine Area
anagement (ICMAM), Project Directorate, 2nd floor, NIOT
Campus, Velacherry, Tambaram, Main Road, Pallikkaranai,
Chennai.600100.
. . . . Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs. Mini R Menon, ACGSC for R. 1 to 4)
This application having been finally heard on 11.8.2015, the Tribunal on
21.8.2015 delivered the following
ORDER
Per: Justice N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member Aggrieved by the refusal of Respondents 1&2 to appoint the applicant as Scientist D and also aggrieved by the cancellation of her offer of appointment as Scientist C stating that she is over aged, the applicant has approached this Tribunal. She also challenges the appointment of the 5th respondent, which according to the applicant was done overlooking her selection based on merit.
2. The applicant has been working as Project Scientist on contract basis under the 4th respondent since July, 2008. She is a Post Graduate in Zoology and has done M.Phil. Annexure A3 notification was issued in April, 2012 for appointment of Scientist D and Scientist C. The applicant was fully qualified for the above post. She had the required experience as per rules. The application was submitted online. Annexure..A4 is the copy of the same. Annexure. A5 is the copy of the Recruitment Rules. The applicant appeared for the interview pursuant to Annexure.A6 letter issued to her. Again letter dated 4.9.2012 (vide Annexure.A7) was issued by the 3 rd respondent which directed the applicant to appear on 25.9.2012 at 9 am for an interview and personal talk for the post of Scientist C even though she had not applied for the same It was done as per clause (iii) of General Conditions of Annexure. A3 notification. The result of the selection was published on the website of the Ministry of Earth Sciences in the moth of October, 2012. As per the same, for the Post Code 12- Scientist D, for which the applicant had submitted her application, Dr. Rasheed Kunhu Mohammed and the 5th respondent Dr. Kari Ramu were seen selected. The applicant was selected for the post of Scientist C (Post Code No.09) as the 4 th candidate. The two selected candidates for the post of Scientist D were appointed at ICMAM Chennai. The vacancy at CMLRE Kochi was not filled up. The applicant was issued with an offer of appointment as Scientist C as per Annexure. A9 dated 8.11.2012. Applicant accepted the appointment as per her letter dated 15.11.2012 (vide Anenxure.A10). Police verification was also done regarding the antecedents of the applicant and she was subjected to a thorough medical check up at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. Thereafter no further action was taken to post the applicant. She continued to work on her contract appointment. When the applicant came to know that others who were selected along with her were issued appointment and posting orders she submitted Annexure. A11 representation. But before it reached the addressee Annexure.A1 order was issued withdrawing Annexure..A9 offer of appointment . Applicant thereafter submitted A12 representation to the first respondent. The applicant was the best and meritorious candidate among all the candidates who appeared for th interview for the post of Scientist D in CMLRE, Kochi. Since the applicant would be eligible for the post of Scientist D on completion of 4 years of service as Scientist C she appeared for the interview for the post of Scientist C as well under the bonafide impression that she was called for interview for the post of Scientist C as per the Recruitment Rules and thereafter she was offered th post of Scientist C. All the required formalities were also complied with. It was long thereafter the appointment of the applicant was cancelled by the respondents by Annexure.A1 order. Annexure A13 is the request made by the applicant for the minutes of selection committee. True copy of the letter with answers, given to the applicant, is evidenced by Annexure.A.14. Annexure.A15 is the true copy of the minutes of the selection committee for the post of Scientists-D and C supplied along with Annexure. A14. The original of the minutes has been tampered as also the order of selected candidates. One of the two posts of Scientist D was in ICMAM, Chennai and the other one in CMLRE Kochi. It is seen corrected by hand in Annexure. A15. Serial number 2 as against the name of the applicant is seen struck off and the name of the 5 th respondent is incorporated as Sl.No.2 and both Mr. Rasheed Kunhu Mohammed and the 5th respondent were appointed at ICMAM, Chennai. It is informed as per the reply received under the RTI that the vacancy of Scientist D in CMLRE kochi is yet to be filled up. On receipt of Annexure. A15 the applicant submitted Annexure. A16 representation dated 7.3.2014. That is replied by Annexure A2 stating that Annexure. A1 order issued cancelling the offer of appointment as Scientist C is correct and that the applicant is over-aged. The applicant is subjected to substantial injustice by denying the appointment as Scientist D and Scientist C also.
3. The respondents were aware of the fact that the applicant was averaged and that was why she did not apply for the post of Scientist C. The personal details and date of birth of the applicant were available with Respondents 1&2 and with the selection committee when they interviewed the applicant for Scientist D on 28.8.2012 and also on 25.9.2012. The appointment of the applicant for Scientist C was done with a clear idea to appoint the respondents own men to Scientist D post. Selection of Scientist D was manipulated by the respondents as can be seen from the minutes of the meeting. Hence the applicant seeks a declaration that she is entitled to be appointed as Scientist D at CMLRE Kochi as per her original merit in the selection as can be seen from Annexure.A15 minutes. She further seeks a direction to appoint her as Scientist D at CMLRE Kochi in preference to the 5 th respondent. There is an alternative prayer seeking direction to respondents to appoint the applicant as Scientist C at CMLRE, Kochi as per the offer made under Annexure. A9.
4. R 1 to 4 filed reply statement contending that recruitment in various grades of Scientists for NIOT, INCOIS, CMLRE, ICMAM, NCMRWF were carried out as per the notified Recruitment Rules. Annexure.R.1(a). advertisement was for a total 32 posts in various grades of Scientists on direct recruitment basis for its attached/subordinate offices/autonomous bodies etc. As per the Recruitment Rules, recruitment was done on the basis of interview/personal talk of candidates screened in by the screening committee before the selection committee. There was one post of Scientist D in ICMAM and another post at CMLRE. It was clearly stipulated under 'General Conditions of guidelines of a candidate that the candidate applied for the posts can be considered for the post lower than advertised/applied. The upper age limit for a candidate in 'General Category' was 40 years and 50 years for the post of Scientist C and Scientist D respectively on the closing date of the application, namely Annexure.A3. In response to the advertisement under Post Code 12 for the post of Scientist D, total 68 number of applications were received. The screening committee recommended only 16 applicants for interview/personal talk. The applicant was one of the candidates who had applied for the post of Scientist D under post code 12. Her application was screened in for interview/personal talk before selection committee. Annexure. R.1(b) is the true copy of OM.F No.ESSO- 1(15)2012-sectt. dated 6.7.2012 issued by the 3rd respondent. Selection Committee constituted for Scientist D met on 28.12.2012 and interviewed the applicant also along with other candidates. The selection committee selected only candidates; namely Shri Rasheed Kunju Mohammed and Shri Kari Ramu. The applicant Smt. Asha Devi was not recommended to the post of Scientist D by the selection committee. However considering the applicant's performance, qualification and experience a conscious decision was taken to call her for Scientist C post. Therefore, the applicant has no claim for the post of Scientist D in preference to Shri Karri Ramu the 5th respondent in the OA. Annexure. R.1 (C) is the true copy of the application of the applicant. The recommendations of Scientist C was in consonance with terms of general conditions of advertisement. The applicant was called for interview for the post of Scientist C which was scheduled to be conducted on 25.9.2012. Selection Committee for the post of Scientist C under Post Code 09 met on 25th and 26th Sept. 2012 vide Annexure.R.1(d). While allowing the applicant to compete for the post of Scientist C the fact that she was overaged as per age criteria stipulated in Recruitment Rules was somehow got inadvertently overlooked. Selection Committee for the post of Scientist C selected 4 candidates (1) Sri Hashim Manjebryakath for CMLRE, (2) Shri Shambanagauda Marigoudar for ICMAM (3) Mrs.Smitha B.R,. for CMLRE and (4) Smt. C.R.Asha Devi (applicant herein) for CMLRE. Annexure. R.1(e) is the copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee. While appearing before Selection Committee for Scientist C posts the applicant was fully aware that she has not been considered for Scientist D and therefore the allegation of tampering of minutes is frivolous, baseless and devoid of any merit.
5. The point for consideration is whether the applicant is entitled to be appointed as Scientist D at CMLRE Kochi?
6. We have heard the learned counsel for both side and have also gone through the pleadings and annexures/documents produced by the parties.
7. Earlier when this OA came up for admission, this Tribunal although admitted the O.A issued notice only with regard to prayer 1 and 3 but so far as prayer No.2 was concerned the Tribunal took the view that the said relief is barred by limitation. Hence notice was not issued pertaining to prayer No.2. That was challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court by filing OP (CAT) No.116/2014. The Hon'ble High Court as per judgment dated 5.8.2014 set aside that part of the order passed by this Tribunal and held that the order of the Tribunal refusing to issue notice in respect of Prayer No.2 deserves to be set aside and it was held that that issue may also be considered by the Tribunal after considering the case of both the parties. Earlier notice was issued to the 5 th respondent who was shown to have been selected as No.2 as per Annexure.A15/Annenxure.17. Since at that point of time the issue pertaining to the selection of the 5th respondent was not in force because of the fact that the Tribunal issued notice only in respect of prayers 1&3, he did not enter appearance. Hence after the judgment of the High Court in OP (CAT) No.116/2014, since it was found that the notice to the 5th respondent was not sent after the disposal of the OP mentioned above, notice was again sent to 5th respondent. It was served on 5th respondent but he did not enter appearance. As such the 5th respondent is exparte.
8. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that only when Annexure A2 order was received she filed OA in 2104. Annexure. A2 was communicated on 14.3.2014. The selection to the post of Scientist D to the extent it denied appointment to the applicant, though was held towards the end of 2012, the minutes could be found out only later. Under the Right to Information Act, copies of the proceedings were obtained by the applicant. That was occasioned when Annexure A.1 order cancelling the offer of appointment under Annexure. A9 was issued. It is pointed out that only when the copies of the documents were obtained under the RTI the manipulation could be found out. Since those manipulations have fundamental impact on the claim made by her and as it is interconnected and interrelated with the claim originally made for the post of Scientist C it cannot be said that claim made with regard to the post of Scientist D is barred by limitation. It is argued by the leaned counsel for the applicant that when the records would show that there was manipulation or some sort of unwholesome act it cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and on that ground also it can be said that the application is within the time prescribed. We are inclined to hold that the application is not barred by limitation in the facts and circumstances of this case.
9. Though in the Original Application the applicant has made an alternative prayer to appoint her as Scientist C at CMLRE Kochi, since (vide Annexure. A9) her offer of appointment was cancelled, it is not disputed that the applicant was over aged and as such she cannot be appointed as Scientist C. The applicant herself says that she did not apply for the post of Scientist C as she was aware of the fact that she was over aged for that post and that was why she applied only for the post of Scientist D. The fact that she was considered for the post of Scientist C and that she was offered appointment as per Annexure.A9 does not give any indefeasible right to be appointed as Scientist C since admittedly she was over aged. The applicant was above 44 years as on the relevant date as against 40 years the upper age limit for that post. As such alternative prayer for appointment as Scientist C post has not been pressed into service by the learned counsel for the applicant.
10. The applicant contends that she had the required qualification and her performance in the interview was also excellent and in fact she was selected for the post of Scientist D at CMLRE Kochi. Annexure.A3 is the Recruitment Notification in which Scientist D - (Post Code 12) one post at CMLRE Kochi was notified for which the applicant submitted her application online. [One post at ICMAM (Chennai) and one post at CMLRE Kochi were the posts notified as per Annexure. A3]. It is not disputed by the respondents that the applicant had the required educational qualification and also the experience as prescribed in Annexure. A3 notification. It is also not disputed that the applicant has been working as Project Scientist at CMLRE Kochi from July, 2008 onwards. Even now she is continuing as such but on contract basis. The Respondents would contend that the screening committee recommended 16 applicants for interview and that applicant was one of the candidates whose application was also screened by the screening committee and she was directed to appear for interview/personal talk before the selection committee.
11. Annexure.R.1(b) is the office memorandum constituting the screening committee for consideration of appointment of Scientist C and D. 5 persons were nominated as Chairman/Members of the Committee. Annexure. R.1(c) is the copy of the on line application submitted by the applicant. Annexure.R.1(d) is the attendance sheet for the post of Scientist C. Annexure R 1(e) is the proceedings of the selection committee for Scientist C which are not relevant now. Annexure.R.1(f) is the copy of Annexure.A9 as per which the offer of appointment of applicant as Scientist C was cancelled.
12. The learned counsel for the applicant would contend that the minutes of the selection committee meeting held on 28.8.2012 for selection of candidates for the post of Scientist D on direct recruitment basis was manipulated or tampered with by one of the respondents who had an axe to grind the matter so as to throw out the applicant. It is seen that in the selection committee besides the Chairman, eight members had taken part. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that the selection committee after interviewing the candidates according to their eligibility, experience and their performance in the interview, recommended Mr. Rasheed Kunhu Mohammed as the first candidate and CR Asha Devi as the second person (applicant herein) and wrote it in the vertical position. Thereafter the figure '2'' was scored off and then after the name Rasheed Kunhu Mohammed 'No.2 Kari Ramu' was written in horizontal position. This is evidently done to suit the convenience and beguile everybody for that matter. Since the name CR Asha Devi was already written in the vertical position noting as (2), in order to avoid scoring of that portion, as against the name CR Asha Devi it was further written 'to be called for SCT-C position'. The figure '2' preceding the name C.R.Asha Devi was scored. According to the Respondents it was done to enable CR Asha Devi (applicant) to be considered for the post of Scientist C. It is not disputed that even as per Annexure. A3 it was stated that the candidate who has applied for a higher post can be later considered for lower post as well and that was why her name was written below the name of Rasheed Kunhu Mohammed . Since on the face of Annexure R.1(b) it did appear to us that some foul play had occurred, the original minutes was also called for. According to the applicant a candidate who is an aspirant for a job would definitely apply to all the posts to which she can apply but the applicant did not apply for the lower post of Scientist C as she was aged above 40 years. According to the respondents the selection committee selected and offered the post of Scientist C. The Date of Birth and other particulars were available with them. The learned counsel for applicant submits that the contention belatedly raised by the respondents that even at the time of selection process her name was recommended for selection as Scientist C is only a camouflage or a wicked idea precipitated in the mental crucible of an ingenious brain. Therefore, the contention that her name was written in Annexure. A.15 at the time of the selection committee meeting on 28.8.2012 itself cannot be accepted at all.
13. Annexure. R1(e) is the minutes of the selection committee meeting held on 25.9.2012 and 26.9.2012. There the name of applicant Asha Devi is shown as Sl.No.4. No correction or overwriting is seen in Annexure.R.1(e). We have perused the original of the minutes (pertaining to the selection of Scientist D). The name and words 'to be called for SCT - C' post, according to the applicant, was written subsequently. In Annexure.R.1(e) the names of the candidates/applicants who were selected were written one after the other in vertical position. The contention that there was was no space in Annexure.A15 for writing the names and that was why the name Karri Ramu was written in horizontal line after the name of Rasheed Kunhu Mohammed was written does not appeal to be sound or reasonable. The learned counsel for applicant points out that the minutes is a 'computer printed' matter and if there was no sufficient space there was no difficulty for getting it typed in such a way, keeping sufficient space. If in the course of writing any mistake happened to be crept in, there was no reason why another print out was not taken and not filled up without any correction. How can it be ensured that all the eight members, besides the Chairman had agreed to the correction or that they were well aware of the correction made in Annexure. A15. Can it be imagined that the figure '2' and the name Kari Ramu would be written horizontally when the figure '2' seen vertically below the name of Rasheed Munhu Mohammed was scored. When it clearly shows the name 'CR Asha Devi' was written in vertical position against the figure '2'. These pertinent questions stare at the respondents, the learned counsel for the applicant would submit. It cannot be believed that all the responsible eight members would have agreed to sign in that minutes had there been such corrections in the original minutes at the time when they put their signatures. There is something fishy in it; we also find.
14. There is one more aspect which assumes importance. In the original minutes pertaining to the selection of Scientists D dated 28.8.2012 in the third line of paragraph 3 after ICMAM, Chennai there is word 'and' in the next line CMLRE Kochi. The words 'and CMLRE Kochi' mentioned above are seen scored off. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the copy of the minutes produced by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court in the Writ Petition referred to earlier, the word 'and CMLRE, Kochi' are not seen scored. That is why in Annexure. A.17 (obtained in that proceedings) that part is not seen scored. Along with the O.A the copy of the original minutes (Annexure A.15) was produced. Therefore, the fact that in the original minutes 'and CMLRE Kochi' also was scored by the officer concerned of the respondent institution would strengthen the case of the applicant that those words were scored in order to accommodate the second man Kari Ramu at Chennai and it was for that purpose against the name Asha Devi (the applicant) it was written as 'to be called for SCI-C position'. There was no necessity for making such an entry in the selection committee meeting held on 28.8.2012 for selection of Scientist D. The Recruitment Rules says that such applicants can be considered for lower post also. That does not mean that such an entry should be made in the minutes pertaining to selection of Scientist .D making corrections which are not seen certified by anybody.
15. Even otherwise the candidate who has applied for Scientist D can be called for the post of C also. Therefore, it is only an explanation or idea invented by the respondents to steel a march on the court to make it appear that the name CR Asha Devi was not written earlier the applicant's counsel argued. Why the figure '2' which was originally written in the vertical line was scored and then name of Karri Ramu was written in the horizontal line after the name Rasheed K.Mohammed was written. According to the applicant, it is quite evident that the scoring of the words as mentioned earlier and the entry 'CR Ash Devi to be called for SCI-C position' were written subsequently; may be even on the same day; but after the members have signed and left the place.
16. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant herein admittedly appeared in the interview for the post of Scientist C on 25th and 26th Sept. 2012 and since she had attended the interview she cannot now contend that she should have been appointed as against post of Scientist D (Post code 12). There is no force in that contention. Even as per Annexure. A3 notification a candidate can be considered for lesser post also. Since she was asked to appear for the interview on 25th and 26 th of September, 2012 she appeared for that interview. Admittedly at that point of time the applicant had no occasion to know that she was in fact originally selected and some manipulation was done later. It is also argued by the counsel for applicant that an aspirant who looks for a job would definitely apply for all the posts and would attend interview whenever called for in his/her anxiety to get a job, but that does not mean that the right which such an applicant has for a particular post should be abandoned or relinquished. There can be no plea of estoppel in such matter. According to the applicant since Annexure.A9 offer of appointment was given at that point of time she was satisfied since after completion of 4 years she would be entitled to be posted as Scientist D. Therefore according to the applicant the fact that she had appeared for Scientist C interview will not in any way affect the claim for the post of Scientist D if it is discernible from the record that in fact that she was selected for the post of Scientist D at CMLRE Kochi.
17. As has been said earlier on going through the minutes of the selection committee the original as well as Annexure.A15 [the original of which has been produced by the respondents in the sealed cover - later opened by us] would make it clear that it was not fairly done. The manipulation, interpolations and corrections done as stated earlier would sufficiently indicate that the applicant's name was originally written as the selected candidate for the post of Scientist D and it was to over come the same all those manipulations were done subsequently. In all probability it could have been done only after other members left the place after the minutes was signed by them.
18. It is also pointed out that she appeared for the interview of Scientist C under the bonafide belief that she was called for interview for that post as per Clause (v) of III of Annexure.A3 which was possible only on relaxation of her age applying Rule 12 of Annexure. A5 Recruitment Rules. But the plea that since she appeared for the interview for Scientist C post it must be presumed that she was aware that she was considered for Scientist C cannot be countenanced for a moment evidently because the result of the selection for Scientist D was published only in October, 2012. Since the result of selection of Scientist D was not published it would he legitimate on the part of the applicant to have attended the interview for the post of Scientist C.
19. It is also stated by the applicant that pursuant to Annexure. A9 [the offer of appointment to the post of Scientist C] police verification was conducted into the antecedents of the applicant. Besides, she was subjected to medical examination for two days at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital at New Delhi. Therefore, according to the applicant the treatment meted out to the applicant after several months sending her out stating that she was overaged would certainly uphold the plea that somehow they wanted to get rid of the applicant to accommodate another person in the post of Scientist D. It is not necessary to dwell much on that aspect since it has already been found that the applicant is not now very much on the post of Scientist C since at the relevant time she was over aged.
20. The copies of the minutes of the selection committee held on different dates in respect of so many posts have been produced as Annexure A14 series which would show that except in the case of Annexure.A15 (where material alteration could be seen) no such correction or scoring of is seen in other papers. Not only that, in all other minutes of the selection committee meeting, the names of the candidates are written in vertical line showing their rank 1,2,3,4,5 etc. Only in this impugned document (the original minute- the copy of which is Annexure.A15) the figure '2' and 'Kari Ramu' is seen written horizontally in the space available after the name Rasheed Kunhu Mohammed was written and another entry was made after scoring the figure '2' and adding 'CR Asha Devi is to be called for SCI-C position'. Though the respondents would put forward their plea that no manipulation was done, we are not inclined to accept that submission as correct.
21. It may be true that a candidate who had appeared for the interview even if her name figured in the selection list, has no indefeasible right of appointment. But when discrimination was shown by appointing another person by subsequently inserting his name as Sl.No.2 in a suspicious manner and when the applicant's name was scored off in an unexplainable and unjustifiable fashion and when it amounts to hostile discrimination causing denial of appointment to the applicant it cannot be said that the applicant has no legally sustainable claim. The respondents did not come forward with a definite stand, pointing out the reason for denial of appointment to the applicant to the post of Scientist D. The reason stated by the respondents is found to be unacceptable because of the alteration and corrections seen effected in the relevant page. As such the action of the respondents is found to be arbitrary and unjsutifiable. There is no case for the respondents that the applicant did not have the essential qualification or experience or that her performance was bad on comparatively less. On the other hand, the assertion made by the applicant that she had performed well since she has satisfied all other conditions and she was the candidate to be appointed for the post of Scientist D at CMLRE Kochi. The further fact is that nobody was posted in the then existed vacant post of Scientist D at CMLRE Kochi. It can be found that she was the only candidate who could have been posted as Scientist D at CMLRE Kochi. The 2nd man Dr. Kari Ramu was admittedly appointed at ICMAM Chennai though as per the notification there was only one post at ICMAM at Chennai. The applicant is not very much against the appointment of Dr. Kari Ramu because it does not affect the plea raised by her for appointment as Scientist D at CMLRE Kochi. It is admitted by the respondents also that even now the post of Scientist D at CMLRE Kochi is lying vacant. Since the applicant was the only candidate whose name figured there for the post of Scientist D and since that post is still lying vacant at CMLRE Kochi there would be no difficulty for the respondents to appoint the applicant to that post without much delay. The fact that the applicant was working in the very same institution as Scientist D though on contract basis for several years is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the applicant has been discharging the duties of Scientist D without any complaint; rather her efficiency, sincerity or capability has not been questioned by the respondents. So much so, there is nothing which stands in the way of applicant being appointed as Scientist D in CMLRE, Kochi.
22. In the light of what is stated above we are of the considered view that the applicant should have been selected as Serial/Rank No.2 for the post of Scientist D at CMLRE Kochi. Since no other person was selected for the only post of Scientist D at CMLRE, Kochi the respondents should appoint the applicant as Scientist D at CMLRE, Kochi. Since we find there was unjust denial the applicant must be deemed to have been appointed on a day immediately prior to the appointment of the 5 th respondent, but the said appointment would be only notional, following the principle of 'no work no pay'. Though the applicant is entitled to get notional seniority and increment her actual pay and allowance would be only from the date she actually assumes the charge of the post of Scientist D at CMLRE Kochi. The entire process shall be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(P.Gopinath) (N.K.Balakrishnan) Administrative Member Judicial Member kspps