Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ravi Kumar vs D/O Space on 25 July, 2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A.No.2662/2017
Reserved on 13th July 2018
Pronounced on 25th July 2018
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Ravi Kumar, aged 39 years
s/o Shri Sewa Ram
r/o KG-1, 543 Vikas Puri
New Delhi - 110 018
..Applicant
(Applicant in person)
Versus
1. Shri A S Kiran Kumar (Secretary/Chairman)
Indian Space Research Organization
Dept. of Space, Government of India
Antariksh Bhavan, New BEL Road
Bangalore-560231
2. Union of India
Represented by the Secretary
Prime Minister Office, South Block
New Delhi - 110 004
3. Mr. Solanki Suryakant Jaswantkumar
(Addressee details not provided by R-1)
..Respondents
(Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi, Mr. Manjeet Singh Reen and Mr. Mallari S Rao,
Advocates)
ORDER
Mr. K.N. Shrivastava:
Through the medium of this O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following main reliefs:-
"(i) directions to quash and set aside the impugned order of Appointment filed as Annexure A-1, and 2 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
(i) directions to remove Respondent No.3 from the post of Administrative Officer as appointed under the impugned illegal order (Annexure -1) and
(ii) directions to R-1 & R-2 for appointment of applicant and,
(iii) directions against R-1 for award of compensation with damages, to the extent of such period as spent bonafide by Applicant in the present proceedings, at the rate of gross monthly salary for the post of Administrative Officer."
2. Factual matrix of the case, as noticed from the records, is as under:-
2.1 The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), vide its Annexure A-2 Advertisement Notice, invited applications for certain posts, including that of Administrative Officer. It indicated therein that there were 2 vacancies of Administrative Officer to be filled up. Besides prescribing the educational qualifications, age limit, experience, etc., the following was also informed to the candidates:
"8......However, the Organisation reserves the right to cancel/change the written test venue and re-allot the candidates to any other test centre. The call letters for written test to the short-listed candidates will be sent only by e-mail during the first week of December 2016. Based on the performance in the written test, candidates will be shortlisted for interview, the schedule and venue of which will be notified. Those who secure minimum 50% marks separately in both objective and descriptive type questions in the written test with minimum 40% in each part will be considered for short-listing for interview. However, depending upon the vacancies to be filled-up, a higher cut-off percentage may be prescribed. Those who secure minimum 50% marks each in written test and interview with an aggregate minimum of 60% marks will be considered for empanelment in the order of merit, subject to number of vacancies notified. In cases, sufficient number of SC/ST are not available for filling-up the vacancies reserved for these categories, relaxation will be extended to candidates belonging to the respective category." 3
2.2 The selection comprised of two parts, namely, written examination and interview. The written examination comprised of four subjects, as detailed below:-
Sl. No. Description Subject Marks 1. Part-A General Studies, Quantitative 36 Reasoning, Arithmetic etc. 2. Part-B English Grammar 32 3. Part-C Special Area - Constitution of 36 India, Acts, Management principles etc. 4. Part-D Descriptive Type - Essay, Precis, 20 Comprehension etc. Total Marks 124 2.3 The written marks were to be normalized from a maximum of 124 to
60. The interview was of 40 marks. The merit list was to be prepared out of 100 marks comprising of 60 of normalized written test and 40 of interview. The respondent No.3 was finally selected. In all, 5 candidates were allowed to participate in the interview on the basis of their performance in the written test and after applying the criteria laid down. The applicant was one of them. The marks secured by these 5 candidates in written test and interview are indicated in table below:-
Sl. Name Marks Normalised Interview Total Remarks No. obtained in written test score (out marks the written score (out of 40) (out of examination of 60) 100) (out of 124) (A) (B) (A+B)
1. 3rd 58.5 28.31 36.55 64.86 Selected respondent (SC)
2. Supriya 69.25 33.51 29.09 62.60 Wait-List-1 Polley
3. Rupali V 61.75 29.88 31.36 61.24 Wait-List-1 Alone
4. Ugale 57 27.58 33.45 61.03 Selected Keshav (ST) Kisan
5. Applicant 79.25 38.25 21.27 59.62 Not empanelled 4 2.4 The grievance of the applicant is that at the behest of respondent No.1, the interview was not conducted in a fair manner and favourtism was shown towards respondent No.3. Irrelevant questions were asked by respondent No.1 to the applicant in gross violation of the Recruitment Rules with a view to select his own man, who was least meritorious. He has further alleged that despite his securing highest marks in written test, he was given much less marks in the interview to deprive him of the final selection. Accordingly, he has approached this Tribunal in the instant O.A. seeking justice and praying for the reliefs as indicated in paragraph (1) above.
3. In support of the reliefs claimed, the applicant has pleaded the following grounds:-
3.1 The applicant is highly qualified and is having 5 years experience in HR/Administration. He has secured highest marks in the written, i.e., 79.25 out of 100.
3.2 The respondent No.1 invited 5 candidates for interview against 1 post despite the general rule of law restricting this number to 3 per vacancy under direct recruitment through written examination. 3.3 The applicant was humiliated in interview by respondent No.1, who had pre-decided to select respondent No.3. The respondent No.1 did not allow any other panelist to ask any question. He asked irrelevant questions to the applicant.5
4. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered their appearance and filed their separate replies.
5. In the reply filed on behalf of official respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the following important averments have been made:-
5.1 In the year 2004, ISRO undertook cadre review of officers grade and decided that 1/3rd of posts in the officers grade will be filled by direct recruitment from open market through written examination and personal interview and the remaining 2/3rd posts will be filled up by promotion. 5.2 The selection for the post of Administrative Officer pursuant to Annexure A-2 Advertisement Notice was to take place comprising written examination, which consists of 4 parts and interview. 5.3 In the final selection process, the weightage apportionment of marks for the 2 elements, viz. written test and interview was 60 marks for written test and 40 marks for interview. The written test marks, out of total 124 marks, were to be normalized with reference to a maximum of 60. Those, who secured minimum of 50% marks in each element of assessment, i.e., written test and interview, and an aggregate minimum of 60% marks, have been considered for empanelment, in the order of merit. 5.4 The selection process was conducted fully in accordance with the standing instructions and rules, and final select list has been drawn on the basis of marks secured by the candidates in written and interview. The allegation of bias by the applicant is baseless and without any substance. 6
6. In the reply filed on behalf of private respondent No.3, it is stated that the applicant has resorted to falsehood, miss-statement and suppression of material facts. The respondent No.1 was not Chairman of the Selection Board, which, in fact, was headed by a senior IAS officer. It is further stated that the applicant although knew that the written test is of 124 marks, but has made a wrong statement to this effect in the table in paragraph 3 of the O.A., that it is out of 100 marks. It is also stated that the applicant has questioned the selection process after having failed to get selected. There were 2 vacancies in the post of Administrative Officer; 1 each for SC and ST categories. On the basis of the performance in the written test, 5 candidates, including applicant, in SC category were called in interview and finally, on the basis of the performance in the written test and interview, the respondent No.3 has been selected for the post of Administrative Officer reserved for SC category.
7. The applicant has filed rejoinders to the replies filed on behalf of the respondents, and on behalf of official respondent Nos. 1 & 2, a sur-
rejoinder has also been filed.
8. On completion of pleadings, the case was taken up for hearing the arguments of the parties on 13.07.2018. Arguments of applicant, as party in person, Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi with Mr. Manjeet Singh Reen, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and that of Mr. Mallari S Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3 were heard.
7
9. We have considered the arguments of the parties and have also perused the pleadings.
10. The scheme of conduct of the selection process pursuant to the Annexure A-2 Advertisement Notice has been spelt out in the Notice itself. The short-listing criteria have also been clearly laid down therein. As could be seen from it, the written examination comprised of 4 parts. These parts had objective and descriptive types of questions. A candidate could be declared eligible for short-listing for interview only after he has secured a minimum of 40% in each of the 4 parts of the written test and a minimum of 50% marks overall in the written test. Again in the interview, 50% marks was prescribed as the threshold and the merit list was to be prepared only of those candidates, who have secured aggregate minimum of 60% marks in written test and interview. From the records, it is quite clear that for selecting the candidates under both SC & ST categories, the criteria laid down for selection have been scrupulously followed by the official respondents. The final select list notified by respondent No.2 vide Annexure A-1 cannot be faulted upon. As per the records, the Selection Board was headed by an IAS officer. The applicant has alleged that respondent No.1 forced his presence in the Selection Board and did not allow any other panelist of the Board to ask questions, and that respondent No.1 was showing favourtism towards respondent No.3. This allegation does not get substantiated from the available records. Accept making the averments to this effect in the O.A., the applicant has not placed on record any material to prove his allegation qua respondent No.1. 8
11. No doubt, the applicant has performed better in comparison to others, in the written test, but at the same time he has not done well in the interview. The final merit list was to be made on the basis of marks secured in the written test and interview. The table in paragraph 2.3 above clearly indicates the marks secured by the 5 short-listed candidates in written and interview. From this table, it is evident that the selection of respondent No.3 to the post of Administrative Officer under SC category was perfectly justified. If the applicant is of the view that unfair means / procedures have been adopted in selecting respondent No.3 to the post in question, nothing prevents him from filing a criminal complaint and seeking a thorough investigation in the matter.
12. However, on the basis of the materials placed before us, we are of the view that the selection had been carried out in accordance with the laid down procedure. We would also like to observe that the applicant has participated in the selection process and has questioned the selection only after he has been declared unsuccessful. If he felt that irregular practice was being adopted by the Selection Board and irrelevant questions had been asked to him with a view to eliminate from the selection, he ought to have raised the alarm on the day of the interview itself. Needless to say that an unsuccessful candidate after having participated in a selection process, without any demur or protest, could not be permitted, later on, to question the process of selection as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines & others (2009) 5 SCC 515. 9
13. In the conspectus of discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, we do not find any merit in the O.A. It is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
14. In view of this, all ancillary Applications also stand disposed of.
( K.N. Shrivastava ) ( Justice Dinesh Gupta ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/