Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Jaikumar vs Union Of India on 10 July, 2008
Central Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur Bench Jabalpur OA No.867/2006 [10086706100708] Jabalpur, this the 10th day of July 2008. CORAM Honble Shri L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman Honble Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Judicial Member Jaikumar S/o Shri Sudarshan Prasad Aged about 36 years R/o Qr.No.25/99 Q Type Ordnance Factory Estate Eastland, Katni District Katni (MP) Applicant [By Advocate: Shri S.Paul) Versus 1. Union of India Ministry of Defence Through its Secretary New Delhi. 2. Director General-cum-Chairman Ordnance Factory Board 10-A,Shaheed S.K.Bose Road Kolkata. 3. General Manager Ordnance Equipment Factory Hazaratpur Firozabad (UP). Respondents [By Advocate : Shri A.P.Khare] O R D E R
By Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Judicial Member Validity of communication dated 15.11.2006 (A-1) rejecting applicants representation & conveying him that there is no requirement of Machinist in Ordnance Equipment Factory, Hazratpur and therefore cancelling the recruitment process to the said post is challenged in the present proceedings.
2. It is stated that applicant completed vocational training under the trade of Machinist and passed the NCTVT examination in 34th batch securing 461 marks out of 700 i.e. 66% marks. He received a call letter dated 3.12.2005 from respondent No.3 requiring him to appear before the selection board on 22.12.2005 for trade test/interview for the post of Machinist(semi-skilled) in pay scale of Rs.2650-4000 along with various other documents. Pursuant thereto, he appeared before the selection board and submitted all the requisite documents. He received three sets of attestation form, which he filled, as required. After police verification, the attestation form had been sent by the office of District Collector, Katni on 21.3.2006. Since despite passage of sufficient time he did not receive appointment letter, he made a representation dated 5.8.2006. In response thereto, he received impugned communication. It is contended that the reason assigned therein is totally incorrect and baseless. There was no justification to cancel the selection process and since he had completed all the requisite formalities for appointment for the said post, it was his legitimate expectation that appointment letter would be issued. Respondents action in cancelling the selection process is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, unfair and discriminatory besides violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. Respondents contested the claim filing detailed reply. It was stated that as per functional requirement in 2005, one post of Machinist (semi-skilled) was proposed to be filled up by appointment of Ex-Trade Apprentice of the Ordnance Equipment Factory, Hazratpur. As there was no Ex-Trade Apprentice available therein, particulars of other such apprentices from another factory were called for. Since only one candidate appeared before the selection board, applicant was declared failed. Later, applicant herein was selected for the said post by way of relaxed standard. After his selection, one Sudama Prasad, Ex.TA of the same institute i.e. Ordnance Factory Katni who was senior to applicant as per batch wise seniority, made representations to respondent No.3 stating that despite informing about his absence on the date of test/interview, the process was carried out, which was illegal. Said Sudama Prasad had also taken up the matter with higher authorities as well as threatened to approach Court of Law. The competent authority decided to cancel the said recruitment process vide letter dated 23/26.10.2006. Incidentally, the requirement of said post was no longer there keeping in view future work load of the factory and the restrictions imposed by the OFB, Kolkata. Furthermore, mere selection process did not confer any legal and indefeasible right for appointment.
4. Shri A.P.Khare, learned counsel for respondents, made a statement at Bar that no one has been appointed against the said post.
5. By filing rejoinder, applicant reiterated contentions raised in OA, besides stating that since he has been selected against SC quota which could not be filled earlier and it being a backlog vacancy, the same cannot be cancelled by the respondents.
6. We heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings carefully.
7. It is well settled law as laid down in Constitution Bench judgement in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India (1991) 17 ATC 95 that :even if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against the existing vacancies?.Unless the relevant recruitment rule so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.
8. The aforesaid law, in our considered view, is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As noted above, it is not the case of applicant that anybody else who is either junior to him or less meritorious, has been appointed over and above, ignoring his claim. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents made a categorical statement at Bar on 8.7.08 that none has been appointed on the said post. Moreover, in reply statement, they have stated that the requirement of Machinist is no longer there. In such circumstances, we cannot direct that applicant should be appointed for the said post.
9. We are of the considered view that applicant has no indefeasible right to appointment. Accordingly, finding no merit, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Mukesh Kumar Gupta) (L.K.Joshi) Judicial Member Vice Chairman aa.