Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Manjunatha T Shetty vs Steel Kiocl on 3 October, 2023
1
OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00196/2022
Order Reserved on: 28.08.2023
Date of Order: 03.10.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
Manjunatha T.Shetty,
S/o Late K. Thyampu Shetty,
Aged 27 years,
Residing at 'Shree Mukambika',
Mudubettu Road, Chanthar P.O.,
Brahmavar-576 213. ..Applicant.
(By Advocate Shri A.R. Holla)
Vs.
Union of India,
By Secretary,
Ministry of Steel,
Udyog Bhavan,
Dr. Maulana Azad Road,
New Delhi-110 011.
2. The Chairman and Managing Director,
KIOCL Limited, Block II,
Koramangala, Sarjapura Road,
Bengaluru-560 034.
3. The Joint General Manager (HR&A),
KIOCL Limited, Block II,
Koramangala, Sarjapura Road,
Bengaluru-560 034.
4. The Manager (HR),
KIOCL Limited, Block II,
Koramangala, Sarjapura Road,
Bengaluru-560 034.
2
OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
5. Ms.C.S.D. Vaishnavi,
Executive Trainee (Finance),
KIOCL Limited, Block II,
Koramangala, Sarjapura Road,
Bengaluru-560 034. ....Respondents
(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Sr. Panel Counsel for Respondent No.1,
Shri Tejas S.R, Counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 4 and
Shri M.B. Anirudh, Counsel for Respondents No.5)
ORDER
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
a) To set aside the selection of respondent No.5 for the post of Executive Trainee (Finance) as per the Notification dated 20.04.2022, (Annexure A-6) and direct the respondents to select and appoint the applicant for the post of Executive Trainee (Finance) in place of respondent No.5.
b) Grant such other relief as deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows:
a) The KIOCL, issued notification inviting applications for the various posts including Executive Trainee (Finance) vide Advt.No.HR/02/650 dated 23.06.2021. The qualification prescribed was a Graduate with membership of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India/Institute of Cost Accountants of India. There were 4 vacancies, UR-2, OBC-1 and EWS-l. The applications were to be made on line. The applicant 3 OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench satisfied the eligibility criteria prescribed for the post and submitted his application bearing No.18477.
b) The applicant was directed to appear for a computer-based test on 08.03.2022 as per the details furnished in the admission letter dated 23.02.2022. The results of the written test were notified on 17.03.2022.
The applicant had secured 75 marks out of 100 and the respondent No.5 had secured 72 marks out of 100. The applicant submits that the marks assigned for the interview were not made known to the short-listed candidates for the interview.
c) The applicant was called for an interview to be held on 08.04.2022 vide letter dated 25.03.2022. The applicant attended the interview on 8.04.2022. The interview was conducted by a committee and the applicant fared well. It was a formal interview wherein only a few questions were asked about himself, his qualifications and broad aspects of subjects relating to Goods and Services Tax and Banking.
d) The applicant was surprised when he saw the notification dated 20.04.2022 of selected candidates. The applicant's name was not there. The respondent No.5 was selected for the post, even though she had secured lower marks than the applicant in the written examination.
e) The applicant contacted the respondent No.4 and requested him to furnish the reasons for his non-selection. The respondent No.4 replied that the written test was assigned the maximum of 100 marks with the weightage of 85% and the interview was assigned marks at 15% and 4 OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench the combined scores were arrived at by the Selection Committee on individual candidates, based on which final selection was made.
f) The applicant requested the respondent No.4 to furnish him the final marks of the selected candidates, in particular, the marks secured by him and the respondent No.5 in the written test as well as in the interview. The respondent No.4 declined to furnish the information on the grounds that the same is confidential.
g) The applicant submits that the High Court of Telangana has held in the case of K. Santosh Kumar Vs. Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence & others (W.P.No.13197 of 2014 dated 22.12.2014) that it is mandatory to disclose the marks assigned to the written test and the oral interview before the selection of the candidates.
h) The applicant submits that there was absolutely no transparency in the selection process and the candidates have been selected arbitrarily disregarding the marks scored by them. Though the applicant had scored more marks than the respondent No.5, the respondent No.5 has been selected for the post without any justification. The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 did not disclose the marks scored by the candidates in the interview. No serious questions were asked in the interview and the purpose of the interview and assigning marks to the candidates in the interview was nothing but to give scope for manipulation in the final selection based on factors other than merit.
i) The Recruitment notification did not disclose the marks assigned to the oral interview. The candidates short listed for selection based on the 5 OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench marks scored by them in the written test, were kept in dark with regard to the marks in the interview. There is no justification to keep the marks scored by the candidates in the oral interview as secret, which serves no purpose other than manipulation in the final result.
j) The High Court of Telangana by an order dated 22.12.2014 in W.P.No.13197 of 2014 (in the case of K. Santosh Kumar Vs. Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence & others), in identical circumstances, has set aside the selection of the successful candidate on the grounds that the marks assigned for written test and oral interview have not been disclosed beforehand. As such, the selection proceedings in the present case are liable to be set aside.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) The Respondent company KIOCL is a Government of India enterprise incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is governed by the Ministry of Steel, Government of India.
b) KIOCL Limited had issued an advertisement for the post of Executive Trainees in the disciplines of Human Resources, Finance and Company Secretary on 23.06.2021 through Newspapers and on the Company website. Amongst them, a total of 4 posts were called for in the Finance category of which 2 posts were for reserved categories and two were for unreserved category. It is laid down in the guidelines that the criteria for selection of candidates will be through Written Test and Personal Interview in the ratio of 85:15.6
OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
c) In response to the advertisement, 114 applications were received for the posts in the Finance discipline. Out of the 114 applicants, 95 applicants were found to be eligible to appear for the Written Test. The written test for the Finance discipline applicants was conducted on 08.03.2022 at Bengaluru. In response to the communication of qualification for the written test, 14 applicants appeared for Written Test. Thereafter, following the rule of 1:3 ratio, 6 candidates who had scored highest marks in written test were called for interview including the Applicant herein. The interview was conducted on 08.04.2022 at the corporate office of KIOCL in Bengaluru. For the position of Executive Trainee in Finance discipline, 5 out of 6 shortlisted candidates appeared in unreserved category for the interview including the Applicant.
d) After the interview, the final merit list of the candidates was prepared based on the marks scored in the written test and the personal interview. The selection committee recommended the candidates viz. Ms. C.S.D. Vaishnavi, who is the Respondent No. 5 and one Mr. Sahith. P for the posts, as they had scored the highest two ranks respectively. The list of selected candidates for the post was published in the website.
e) The selection committee recommended to keep the Applicant in the panel, who had scored the third highest marks. The panel will remain valid for a period of 12 months from the date of such approval and is extendable for a further period of twelve months in two spells of six months each with approval of the Competent Authority. 7
OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
f) The overall marks and final merit list of the candidates belonging to the UR category who appeared for the written test as well as the interview is as follows:
i. Ms. CSD Vaishnavi (Respondent No. 5) - 75.20 ii. Mr. P. Sahith - 74.60 .
iii. Manjunath T Shetty (Applicant) - 72.75
iv. Ms. Abinaya Jayanand - 61.80
v. Mr. Moturi Suneesha - 60.95
g) As per the guidelines, the selected candidates were called upon to undertake the medical fitness test and subsequently, appointment letters were issued to both the selected candidates for the unreserved category. The Applicant sought for several information under RTI Act and suitable replies were given to him by KIOCL.
h) The Applicant had scored 75 marks in the written test and the Respondent No. 5 had scored 72 marks in the written test. As far as the interview marks are concerned, the same were not made known as it is not a prerequisite to inform all parties of such details while arriving at and announcing the final result of the selected candidates.
i) The interview process was not a mere formal interview in the manner suggested by the applicant. The applicant is attempting to portray as if the interview could not possibly affect the result of candidature to make any difference to the score arrived at in respect of the written test. The Graduate Engineer Trainee's / Executive Training Scheme 8 OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench ("GETETS") lays down the guidelines of the training scheme including the recruitment process. A copy of the Graduate Engineer Trainee's/ Executive Training Scheme is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2. The GETETS provides the selection criteria for candidates out of 100 marks based on the following means:
A. GATE/Test Score (written test): 85 marks B. Interview: 15 marks.
j) The said weightage/distribution is well within the knowledge of the applicant, as admitted by him in para 4(iv) of the application. The weightage given to the Interview process cannot be discounted by the Applicant at his own whims and fancies, when the mechanism clearly provides room to the interview process to make a difference in selection.
k) The interview was conducted by a distinguished panel consisting of senior officials including the Director (Finance), Director (Production & Projects), General Manager In charge (Finance), Senior Manager (HR) and other high ranking officials. Director (Finance) and General Manager In charge (Finance) possess more than 30 years of experience each and are qualified Chartered Accountants and Cost Accountants and the Director (Production & Projects) has more than 30 years' experience in various Technical/Managerial experience in the Company.
l) The interview process has been specially designed by the interview panel, so as to assess the candidate on the basis of subject knowledge, 9 OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench behavioural skills, communication, technical competence, team functioning and approach to work culture, etc. The objective of the interview process is to filter candidates in such a manner so as to induct bright young persons, having potential for development in the junior executive cadre of the Company, in order to enrich and encourage managerial talent and ensure managerial succession to carry forward the work culture and management standards of the Company.
m) The Applicant has wrongly indulged in a self-imposed misunderstanding that the interview process is a mere formality, which ought not to have affected his marks, which attitude is in total disregard to the policy of the Respondent where the Applicant wants to secure employment. It is relevant to point out that it is not up to the Applicant to decide how the interview ought to have been conducted and whether in the manner in which it was conducted, marks could have been awarded in a manner to alter the position of candidates' merit or not.
n) The applicant had filed an RTI application dated 20.04.2022 calling upon the Respondents to furnish the details of marks scored by himself as well as the Respondent no. 5 in all the rounds. The Applicant has made several phone calls to the office of the Respondents, asking for details including the phone number of the chairman of the selection committee, which the Applicant is not entitled to do. The information in respect of the Applicant was duly furnished to him vide letter dated 17.05.2022 issued by the respective information Officer. The information in respect of the Respondent No. 5 was not furnished as the same does not pertain to the Applicant. Therefore, the allegation to 10 OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench the effect that there is no transparency, is absolutely a malicious statement and all the relevant information has been furnished to the Applicant. The case law mentioned by the applicant in para 4(iv), in WP No. 13197 of 2014, does not apply to the case in hand.
o) The Applicant had issued an email dated 03.05.2022 after filing the present case, expressing that he would be willing to engage in an out of court settlement whereby he will withdraw the present case if KIOCL offers him the position of Executive Trainee instead of the Respondent No. 5. Further the applicant again sent an email on 30.05.2022 informing that he has decided to further extend settlement offer till 07.07.2022. This act alone is sufficient to prove that the present case is a clear example of motivated litigation. The Applicant is attempting to twist the arm of the Respondents 2 to 4 to select him for the position of Executive Trainee and has only filed the present case to create pressure of enduring an unwarranted litigation and the costs arising thereof.
4. Respondent No.5 has filed her reply statement and has averred as follows:
a) The Respondent No.5 as well as the applicant, amongst other participants, had attended the written test and interview process conducted by M/s. KIOCL for the said post. Upon participation in both the rounds, the Respondent No.5 has cumulatively secured a higher score than the applicant, resulting in the selection of the Respondent No.5. Thus, the Respondent No.5 has rightfully been selected as the suitable candidate.11
OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
b) The applicant, 5th Respondent and other candidates were called upon to attend the interview process upon qualifying in the written test. The interview process was conducted by a panel of highly qualified and experienced officers and the distinguished panel had in fact consisted of several high ranking officials of the company. The 5th Respondent was asked several questions regarding her qualifications, technical knowledge and questions to understand her ability to work at M/s. KIOCL Limited.
c) The 5th Respondent believes that the panel of interviewers were happy with the responses including the technical knowledge and soft skills. The 5th Respondent submits with utmost humility that her performance in the interview was accredited with high scores and she stood higher than the applicant in the final merit list after the interview. Therefore, in accordance with the selection process guidelines, the final score was taken into consideration. Therefore, the 5th Respondent was selected for the post of 'Executive Trainee (Finance)'. Upon attending the medical fitness examination and being approved in the same, the 5th Respondent was offered the position of Executive Trainee (Finance) and accepted the same.
d) In furtherance to her selection, she has been employed with M/s KIOCL for more than 5 months now. During this period, the management has expressed its appreciation of the quality of work and work culture of the 5th Respondent and the 5th Respondent is sincere and dedicated towards her work.
12
OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
e) The 5th Respondent wishes to submit that her scores in the ICWA exam was 68.12, whereas the score of the applicant, as seen in his application in Annexure A-2 is 51.62. Although this score was not considered for the selection process, the 5th Respondent makes this submission to implore that she is a meritorious candidate.
f) It is true that the 5th Respondent scored 72/100 in the written test and the applicant scored 75/100. However, the written test was never meant to be the final bench mark of selection as specific weightage was given to the interview process. Therefore, the applicant is wrong to imply that the interview score could not have affected the final merit list. The judgment relied on by the applicant i.e. WP No.13197/2014 is not at all applicable. The said judgment has been passed in a completely different set of facts and circumstances.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
6. In the present case, the applicant has challenged the selection of Respondent No.5 i.e., Ms. C.S.D. Vaishnavi, to the post of Executive Trainee (Finance) and has prayed for setting aside her selection and to appoint the applicant in her place.
7. The applicant has stated that he had secured a total of 75 marks out of 100 marks in the written test conducted on 08.3.2022 in Finance as against 72 marks secured by the 5th respondent in the same examination. 13
OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
8. The respondents have stated that under the selection scheme for the post of Executive Trainee, the selection criteria stipulates to assess the suitability of candidates based on the following guidelines:
(1) Test Score : 85 Max. marks
(2) Interview :15 Max. Marks
Total: 100 marks.
9. The respondents have further stated that although the applicant has scored 75 marks out of 100 in the written test, he had scored 9 marks out of 15 in the interview. Respondent No.5 had scored 72 marks out of 100 marks in the written test, but had scored 14 marks out of 15 in the interview.
10. The Applicant had therefore scored 63.75 marks out of 85 after considering the weightage of 85 marks for the written test. After adding the 9 marks obtained by him in the interview, he had obtained a total score of 72.75 marks in the overall merit.
11. The 5th Respondent had scored 61.2 marks out of 85 after considering the weightage of 85 marks for the written test. After adding the 14 marks obtained by her in the interview, she had obtained a total score of 75.2 marks in the overall merit.
12. Hence, though the applicant had scored higher marks in the written test, he had been awarded comparatively lower marks in the interview. Consequently, taking into account the overall merit position, after accounting for the marks in the written test (85% weightage) and the marks obtained in the interview (15% weightage), the Respondent No.5 had scored 14 OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench more marks than the applicant on overall merit, and had consequently been selected and appointed. The applicant is apparently third in the overall merit and has been kept in the reserve panel.
13. The applicant has stated that no serious questions were asked in the interview and the purpose of the interview and assigning marks to the candidates in the interview was nothing but to give scope for manipulation in the final selection based on factors other than merit.
14. The respondents were directed on 27.7.2023 to produce the entire Rules of the company relating to this selection along with the selection file. These records were produced by the respondents on 16.08.2023 and perused.
15. The records produced by the respondents, indicate that the interview process was conducted by a Committee consisting of 7 Senior Officers comprising of the following:
i) Director (Finance)
ii) Director (Production and Projects)
iii) GM Finance
iv) Joint GM (Minority Representative)
v) AGM (I&P) - OBC Representative
vi) SM (TS) - Women Representative
vii) SM (HR)
16. The assessment by the interview committee was based on three broad parameters relating to the following 15 OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench i. Communication Skill (Verbal, Non-Verbal, Listening, Articulation of thoughts etc.)- Max 5 marks.
ii. Technical Competence (Professional knowledge, Continuous learning, analytical skills and decision making)- Max 5 marks. iii. Behavioural competence (Assess candidates' behaviour & attitude vis-a-vis-job profile) - Max 5 marks.
17. All the 8 candidates who had appeared for the interview were assessed through this criteria. Marks were allotted on each of these parameters by all the Members of the Interview Committee separately. Subsequently, the overall marks obtained in the interview were assigned on the basis of marks awarded by each of the Committee members. From the records, it is apparent that the awarding of marks by the Interview Committee is done after an elaborate and careful exercise, involving all the 7 different senior Members of the interview committee, which assess each candidate on the three specified parameters.
18. It is noticed that the marks scored by each of the candidates in the written examination were published on the website of KIOCL on 18.3.2022, prior to the holding of the interview on 08.4.2022. Once, the written marks are published on the website, the same can be presumed to be in public domain. It is possible that the marks obtained in the written examination could possibly be known to the interview panel members prior to the interview process. This could have introduced a possibility of bias in the interview assessment to be made by the Interview Committee. However, the records submitted by the respondents do not indicate anywhere that the marks 16 OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench obtained by the candidates in the written test were made available to the Committee members.
19. The respondents' counsel has forcefully averred that the Interview Committee comprised of 7 Senior Officers. Their assessment was solely based on the factors prescribed for the interview process. They were not aware of the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination.
20. The applicant has not alleged any bias on the part of the Committee members in the present OA. From the records available of the selection process also, there is no evidence of any bias in the selection process. It would be fair to conclude that the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview were awarded without any apparent bias and were based on a reasonable and fair assessment by the interview committee.
21. The selection criterion is based on the Recruitment Rules of KIOCL prescribed for selecting Executive Trainees (ETs) under a scheme for ETs in areas such Finance, Marketing, HR, Law, Company Secretary etc. Under these rules, the selection criterion has been prescribed which provides for 85% weightage for marks obtained in a written test and 15% weightage for marks obtained in the interview. This criterion and the weightage assigned are reasonable. Since this is a prescribed criterion under the Rules, the contention of the applicant that only the marks obtained in the written test should be taken into account with the marks obtained in the interview being treated as a mere formality, cannot be countenanced.
22. Once the selection process has been finally completed, it would be appropriate for the respondents to release the marks obtained by all the 17 OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench participating candidates both in the written test as well as the interview and the total marks separately, so that transparency is maintained in the selection process. It would be appropriate, however, for the respondents to avoid publishing the marks obtained in the written examination at an intermediate stage, before completion of the selection process in its entirety, in future selections.
23. The applicant is relying on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Telengana in WP.No.13197/2014 - K. Santosh Kumar vs. Government of India & others. However, a perusal of that case indicates that in that case, the controversy involved was whether the selection should be set aside on account of non-mentioning of the minimum qualifying marks in the interview. In that case, the total marks obtained by the petitioner comprising of marks obtained in written test and the marks obtained in the interview were higher than the 5th respondent. However, the petitioner in that case had been awarded 6 marks in the interview and was disqualified since he had failed to secure the prescribed minimum 7.5 marks in the interview, whereas the 5th respondent had been awarded 13 marks in the interview. Therefore, the total marks obtained by the 5th respondent though being lesser than the total marks obtained by the petitioner, the 5th respondent was selected for the post. It was also noticed in that case, that to enhance the prospects of the 5th respondent, he was made the only candidate who was awarded 13 marks and all the remaining candidates who had appeared in the interview had been awarded less than the minimum qualifying standard of 7.50 marks.
24. In the present case, the situation is completely different. There are no prescribed minimum marks specified for the interview. The applicant has 18 OA.No.196/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench not been disqualified on the ground that he has scored less than the minimum qualifying marks in the interview. He has been placed at Sl. No. 3 based on his overall merit, after taking into account the marks obtained by him in the written test as well as in the interview, conducted by the respondents. He has, in fact, been placed on the panel which will remain operative for a period of 12 months and extendable for a further period of twelve months in two spells of six months each with approval of the Competent Authority.
25. Keeping the above points in view, the present OA being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/vmr/