Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Raj Singh vs Indian Council Of Medical Research ... on 18 January, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No. 631/2009
New Delhi, this the 18th day of January, 2010
Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J)
Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A)
1. Shri Raj Singh
s/o Shri Bhim Singh,
r/o H. No-56, Vill. Mangol Pur Khurd,
Delhi-110085.
Shri Daya Sagar,
s/o Sh. Kishan Dutt,
r/o C/12/84, Sector-5,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.
Shri Ajit Singh Lehra
s/o Late Shri Sohan Lal,
r/o 1529/7, Wazir Nagar,
Kotla Mubarkpur,
New Delhi-110003.
Shri Manoj Kumar Sejwal,
s/o Sh. Rajendra Kumar,
r/o 211, Humayan Pur,
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029.
Shri Anish Kumar Saxena,
s/o Late Shri A.K. Saxena,
r/o 426, Tulsi Niketan,
Bhau Pura, Ghaziabad, U.P.
( Applicants No. 2 & 3 are working as Lab.
Attendant and the applicants No. 1, 4 & 5 are
Working as Attender under the Respondent No.3.
Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri R.N. Singh for Shri R.V. Sinha)
Versus
Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi-110029.
(Through: The Director General, ICMR)
Institute of Pathology,
ICMR,
Safdarjung Hospital Campus,
Post Box-4909,
New Delhi-110029.
(Through: The Director)
Union of India,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
(Through: its Secretary)
Shri Bijendra Kumar,
s/o Late Shri Jasram Singh,
presently working as Lab. Assistant,
under the respondent No. 2 herein.
(To be served through the Respondent No. 2 herein).
. Respondents.
(By Advocates : Ms. Nidhi Bisaria for respondents 1,2&3 with Shri Apurb Lal for respondent No.4)
: O R D E R :
Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
Five Applicants have joined together in this OA and have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with following prayers :
(i) Call for the records of the respondents No.1 to 3 pertaining to the roaster, being maintained, if any, and records, including the interview and assessment thereof, regarding filling up of the post of Lab. Assistant in 2008 and kindly peruse the same;
(ii) Declare the selection and appointment of the respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary, quash the same and direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to fill up the post of Lab. Assistant and consider the candidature of the applicants against such post in accordance with the recruitment rules in just and fair manner with all consequential benefits;
(iii) Allow the cost of the litigation expenses in favour of the applicants and against the respondents;
(iv) May also pass any further order(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice.
2. The Applicants were appointed to the post of Attender/Lab Attendant between the years 1992 to 2001. Earlier they have also worked on casual basis for a good number of years before they were regularized on the said posts. It is stated that on 23.09.2008, an office circular was placed on the notice board of the Respondent No.2 to fill up one post of Laboratory Assistant on direct recruitment basis. The Applicants applied for the said post. They were called for interview who participated in the interview between 17th to 20th October, 2008. However, their grievance is that respondent No.4 was selected and appointed to the post of Lab Assistant. It is alleged that aforesaid interview was nothing but mere formality inasmuch as the Respondent Nos.1to3 have not followed the proper selection process and violated the instructions of the DOP&T and settled legal position as laid down by the Honble Apex Court . It is also alleged that the Respondents do not maintain roaster for direct recruitment and promotion quota for the post, as a result of which Respondent No.4 was favoured by getting him appointed to the post of Laboratory Assistant. Having been aggrieved by this action of the official Respondents, all the Applicants have moved this Tribunal in this OA.
3. Shri R.N. Singh representing Shri R.V. Sinha, learned counsel for the applicants contended that there was undue favour shown to the Respondent No.4 by the official Respondents over looking the experienced persons like Applicants. His another contention was that there was no roaster indicating the number of posts /vacancies which would be filled by promotion or by direct recruitment for the post of Laboratory Assistant. The official respondents did not advertise in the newspapers and thereby there was no wide choice for the official Respondents to select a suitable person. Had the roaster been maintained, it would have been possible to know whether the post needed to be filled up by promotion or by direct recruitment. He also submitted that the Applicants had better experience than the Respondent No.4. Therefore, Shri R.N. Singh, contended that the Original Application should be allowed and the impugned appointment of the Respondent No.4 should be quashed and set aside.
4. On the contrary, Ms. Nidhi Bisaria representing the Respondent No.1to3 and Shri Apurb Lal, counsel for Respondent No.4 vehemently opposed the contentions raised by Shri R.N. Singh.
5. Shri Apurb Lals contention was that Respondent No.4 was eligible for the post of Laboratory Assistant. He drew our attention to the judgment of this Tribunal dated 15.05.2001 passed in OA No.1907/00 whereby the official respondents were directed to consider the Respondent No.4s case for suitable appointment in the Organisation. He also submitted that as the Applicants participated in the selection process, they were estopped to raise the issue of selection before this Tribunal. In this context, he relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and Ors. Vs. S. Vinod Kumar and Ors. (2007 8 SCC 100), as per which he submitted that the candidates who take part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question the same subsequently in any court of law.
6. Ms. Nidhi Bisaria supporting the contentions raised by Shri Lal submitted that there was no fowl play nor there was any favouratism shown to the Respondent No.4 by the official Respondents. The selection process was through an interview and considering the candidates for the post , the Respondent No.4 was found the best and was selected. He was competent and the Applicants might be suitable for the post but since it was a direct recruitment post, the Respondent No.4 performing better than the Applicants was selected. Therefore, she submitted that OA was liable to be dismissed.
7. Having head the rival contentions, we perused the pleadings.
8. The Recruitment Rules for Technical Post (Laboratory Assistant) under Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) provides in Column 11 the method of recruitment which provides to be either by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation or by absorption and percentage vacancies be filled by various methods. The RR specifies (a) 25% by direct recruitment from among the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange (b) 75% by promotion from the Laboratory Attendants with three years of experience in that grade. Column 14 provides the Selection Committee for the direct recruitment of the Lab Assistant. In the circular dated 23.09.2008, the respondent, ICMR called for applications from the eligible regular employees of the Institute of Pathology to fill up two posts (Laboratory Technician -1 and Laboratory Assistant 1). It is noticed that the process adopted by the respondents for calling for the applications from eligible candidates through an office circular is admissible and well within the prescribed procedure. We note that the sole vacancy is to be filled up under 25% direct recruitment quota. The vacancy not being under 75% promotion quota, the Applicants claim for promotion and unfair practice of non-maintenance of Roaster would not stand to reason. The Respondents have admitted that the vacancy of Laboratory Assistant was coming within the 25% of direct recruitment quota. It has been acknowledged that the roaster for promotion as well as direct recruitment quota is properly maintained by the ICMR. Therefore, this contention of the counsel for the Applicant does not hold good.
9. The Applicants alongwith Respondent No.4 were called for interview and only Respondent No.4 was selected. Therefore, it is found that the Applicants were allowed the opportunity for consideration by the Selection Committee. As per the settled law in the subject, the Applicants have only right for consideration but they cannot claim to have a right to be selected and as such the Applicants having participated in the interview and selection process are stopped from challenging appointment made by the respondents after the completion of a full selection process. It is averred by the official Respondents that they are obliged to call for the candidates for recruitment through the Employment Exchange as also by way of putting up circular/notice for such recruitment on the notice board and as such both the requirements were complied with by them. They have denied that the post was not published just to give undue benefit to the Respondent No.4.
10. It is also noticed from the orders of this Tribunal dated 15.05.2001 in OA No.1907/2000 that the Respondent No.4 figures as one of the Applicants. This Tribunal has considered the request of the applicant in the said Original Application for regularization of the services as Laboratory Assistant. In this context, the learned Single Bench of the Tribunal passed the following order :-
In the facts and circumstances brought out in the preceding paragraphs and in paragraph 7 in particular, I find that having regard to the practice hitherto followed by the respondents and the provisions made in the Recruitment Rules, the applicants might be entitled to be considered for appointment/regularization in the post of Laboratory Assistants in their turn and subject to availability of vacancies. Accordingly, I proceed to dispose of this OA by directing the respondents to consider the claims of the applicants for appointment/regularization as LA as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the observations made in this order and the provisions made in the aforesaid Recruitment Rules, as pass a speaking order.
11. We are in full agreement with the views expressed by the learned counsel for Respondents that once the candidates take part in the selection process and having been fully aware of the selection procedure laid down, they cannot question the selection process at a later stage. In this context, S.Vinod Kumars case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents is valid and we, therefore, cite the relevant paragraph for the present case :-
18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same.
12. Having considered the full facts and circumstances of the case, we come to the considered conclusion that the Applicants have not made out a case in their favour. In the result, the Original Application having no merits, is hereby dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (Shanker Raju)
Member (A) Member (J)
/rk/