Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Anooj Kumar P vs Union Of India on 21 March, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. NO. 625 OF 2011
Wednesday, this the 21st day of March, 2012
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Anooj Kumar P., aged 42 years,
S/o. Pushapangadan, Shreyas,
VARA-245, Mulamoodu Lane,
Vattiyorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram-13. ... Applicant
[By Advocate Mr. Blaze K. Jose]
Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Personal
Public Grievances and Pension,
North Block, New Delhi represented by its
Secretary - 110 001.
2. Staff Selection Commission, 1st Floor,
E Wingh, Kendria Sadan, Koramangala,
Bangalore, Karnataka-560 034,
represented by its Regional Director.
3. Assistant Director, Staff Selection Commission,
1st Floor, E Wingh, Kendria Sadan,
Koramangala, Bangalore,
Karnataka- 560 032. ... Respondents
[By Advocate Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC]
The application having been heard on 29.02.2012, the Tribunal
on 21.03.12 delivered the following:
O R D E R
By Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member -
The applicant herein, an Ex-serviceman, had applied for the post of Junior Hindi Translator as per the notification published in the Employment News dated 28-08 - 03.09.2010, for the examination held on 05.12.2010. For Group-B post, Ex-Servicemen (OBC) candidates were given 8 years age relaxation beyond upper age limit. For Group-C post, Ex- servicemen (OBC) candidates were given 6 years age relaxation after deduction of Military service rendered from the actual age. The applicant was eligible to apply for Group-C post under Ex-serviceman category. A corrigendum was published in the Employment News dated 26-02 - 04.03.2011 (Annexure R-1) stating that the post with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- having been reclassified as Group-B as per Notification No. S.O. 946 (E) dated 09.04.2009, the vacancies of Junior Hindi Translator in this Grade Pay will be filled by the Staff Selection Commission from the aforesaid examination. As per this corrigendum, the applicant is over aged for the post of Junior Hindi Translator, his date of birth being 01.06.1969. Hence, his name was not figuring in the final list of selected candidates. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this O.A. for the following reliefs:
(i) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A-7 and set aside Annexure A7;
(ii)Declare that altering the rules, criteria, norms age criteria or category of the post after starting the recruitment process and in the middle of the recruitment process is against the fundamental principles and doctrine of fair play and therefore illegal and unsustainable.
(iii)Direct the respondents to include the applicant in A% list of qualified candidates, A8 final select list and A9 allocation of Zone in the post of Junior Hindi Translator under the category of Ex-servicemen (OBC) and to appoint to him in his turn.
(iv)Any other further relief or order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice."
2. The applicant contended that the right of the applicant to be considered for appointment in accordance with the notification cannot be infringed for any reason after the commencement of the selection process. The applicant was eligible to apply for Group-C post under Ex-serviceman category as per the notification published. The rule of the selection cannot be altered after the selection process has started on 05.12.2010 by conducting a written test. The corrigendum was published on 12 01.2011. After starting the recruitment process changing the rules, criteria, norms and age conditions or category of the post of the selection is against fair play. The corrigendum cannot be invoked to defeat the right as it stood crystallized in the notification or as it stood before the commencement of the recruitment process. Even after publication of the corrigendum, the applicant was called for interview as per letter dated 15.03.2011. Elimination of the applicant from the recruitment process, after it had commenced, on the basis of a corrigendum, is illegal and arbitrary.
3. The respondents in their reply statement submitted that the fact that the Junior Hindi Translator is a Group-B post as per the notification No. S.O.946(E) dated 09.04.2009, was brought to the notice of all the applicants vide corrigendum published in the Employment News dated 26-02 - 04.03.2011. There is no question of altering the rules or conditions in the selection process. The name of the applicant is not figured in final list of selected candidates as he is over aged for the post of Junior Hindi Translator. The admission of the candidates at all stages of the examination was purely provisional subject to their satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions as per note below Para 10 of the Employment News published on 28-08 - 03.09.2010. The applicant is demanding age relaxation for which he is not entitled. The reclassification of the post of Junior Hindi Translator as a Group-B post was a policy decision taken by the Department of Personnel and Training, who is the competent authority in the matter. Therefore, the action taken by the Staff Selection Commission cannot be questioned by the applicant, as long as there is nothing malafide or illegal in the action. There has been no selective discrimination against the candidates as the corrigendum which is based on an existing O.M. of the DoP&T applied to all similarly placed candidates. Therefore, neither the principles of natural justice nor the principles of equality among equals has been violated.
4. We have heard Mr. Blaze K. Jose, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, learned SCGSC appearing for the respondents and perused the records.
5. The applicant has got a right for consideration for appointment only. He was considered for appointment as Junior Hindi Translator. As he was found over aged on account of the change in the classification of the post, he was not included in the list of selected candidates. The short question to be answered is whether the classification of the post of Junior Hindi Translator as Group-B is legal or not. A notification for holding an All India open examination fro recruitment to the post of Junior Hindi Translator to be held on 05.12.2010 was issued in the Employment News dated 28-08
- 03.09.2010. The post of junior Hindi Translator with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- was reclassified as Group-B as per notification No. S.O.946(E) dated 09.04.2009. A corrigendum issued thereafter was based on O.M. of the Department of personnel and Training, which was issued prior to the commencement of the recruitment process. This fact was brought to the notice of all the applicants vide the said corrigendum. In fact, there was no change in the rules and conditions of the selection process once it commenced. The classification of the post of Junior Hindi Translator as Group-B post was due to the introduction of the revised pay structure as per the recommendations of the 6th CPC. The only practical course of action available to the respondents was to inform all concerned vide the corrigendum published in the Employment News dated 26-02 - 04.03.2011 about the change in the classification for the post of Junior Hindi Translator as Group-B. This was done with no ulterior motive. The question of discrimination does not arise. If the applicant was disqualified on account of over age due to classification of Junior Hindi Translator as Group-B, it was not intentional at all. There was no arbitrariness or illegality in the action taken by the respondents. There was no change in the rules of game once it started. Only the fact that existed before the notification that the Junior Hindi Translator post is a Group-B post was informed to all candidates. There was no justification for cancelling the notification. The admission of the candidates at all stages of the examination was purely provisional subject to satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions. It was clearly mentioned in Note below of Para 10 of the Employment News published on 28-08 - 03.09.2010. Therefore, we do not find that the right of the applicant for consideration for appointment as Junior Hindi Translator is infringed by the corrigendum published after the commencement of the selection process. We do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Junior Hindi Translator necessitating interference by this Tribunal.
6. Devoid of merit, the O.A. is dismissed with no order as to costs.
K.GEORGE JOSEPH JUSTICE PR RAMAN ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER cvr.