Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Karam Chand S/O Sh. Khem Chand vs Union Of India on 3 July, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
(CIRCUIT BENCH AT SHIMLA)
(Reserved on 18.05.2017)
Date of decision-03.07.2017
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR. SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A)
(i) O.A No. 063/00081/2016
Karam Chand S/o Sh. Khem Chand, R/o Village & P.O. Dudar, Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. presently working as Plumber/Electrician on daily wages basis, Group-C, in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalya, Kullu, Distt. Kullu, H.P. (age 38 years).
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate.
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Human Resource & Development, Department of Education, A-28, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048.
2. Deputy Commissioner Navodaya Vidyala Samiti, Regional Office, Chandigarh.
3. Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Bandrol, Kullu, Distt. Kullu, H.P.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. D.R. Sharma, counsel for respondents no. 2 & 3.
(ii) OA No.063/00122/2016
Sat Pal S/o Sh. Dharam Singh Guleria, R/o Village Gadohal, P/o Sajao Peplu, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P. presently working as ECP on daily wages basis in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kinnaur, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate.
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Human Resource & Development, Department of Education, New Delhi-110048.
2. Deputy Commissioner Navodaya Vidyala Samiti, Regional Office, Chandigarh.
3. Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Reckongpeo, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. Anshul Bansal, counsel for respondent no. 1.
Mr. D.R. Sharma, counsel for respondent no. 2 & 3.
(iii) OA No.063/00121/2016
Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Hari Singh, R/o Village Dipra, P/O Theog, Tehsil Theog, Distt. Shimla, H.P. presently working as Cook and Mess Helper on daily wages basis in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Theog, Distt. Shimla, H.P.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate.
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Human Resource & Development, Department of Education, New Delhi.
2. Deputy Commissioner Navodaya Vidyala Samiti, Regional Office, Chandigarh.
3. Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Dhanasu, Distt. Ludhiana, Punjab.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. Anshul Bansal, counsel for respondent no. 1.
Mr. D.R. Sharma, counsel for respondent no. 2 & 3.
(iv) OA No.063/00370/2017
Parmod Kumar S/o Sh. Shiv Shankar, R/o VPO & Tehsil Longowal, Distt. Sangrur, Punjab, age 33 years, presently working as Plumber/Electrician on daily wages basis in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalya, Faridkot, Distt. Faridkot, Punjab (Group-C).
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate.
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Human Resource & Development, Department of Education, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Deputy Commissioner Navodaya Vidyala Samiti, Regional Office, Bay No.26-27, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh-160030.
3. Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kaunim, Distt. Faridkot, Punjab-151212.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE : Ms. Shubh Mahajan, counsel for respondent no. 1.
Mr. D.R. Sharma, counsel for respondent no. 2 & 3.
ORDER
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
The bunch of four O.As involve common facts and relief which allow us to hear these petitions together likewise as requested by the learned counsel for the parties and dispose of all these petitions by common order. For convenience, the facts are taken from O.A No. 063/00081/2016 titled Karam Chand Vs. U.O.I & Ors..
2. The applicant has assailed letter dated 14.03.2016 (Annexure A-1) and letter dated 27.06.2016 (Annexure A-2) whereby respondent no. 2 refused to approve the recommendations made by respondent no. 3 for appointment as Electrician cum Plumber in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Bandrol, Distt. Kullu (H.P).
3. The factual score as depicted is that the applicant, Mr. Karam Chand, worked as an Electrician cum Plumber on daily wages basis from 07.04.2008 in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya ( in short JNV) Kaja, Distt. Lahoul & Spiti, H.P. He remained there upto 30.09.2014. He was again appointed as such on 01.10.2014 in JNV, Bandrol, Kullu and till now he is working with them. It is the case of the applicant(s) that respondent no. 2 issued letter dated 25.02.2015 to all JNVs under Chandigarh Region with a direction to respondent no. 3 to fill up the post of Electrician cum Plumber and other posts by way of direct recruitment as per the guidelines issued by them in this behalf. In furtherance thereto another letter was issued from respondent no. 2 on 28.07.2015 directing respondent no. 3 to fill the posts of Group C Non-Ministerial which includes one post of Electrician cum Plumber. Thereafter, respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 07.08.2015 initiated the process for filling up one post of Electrician cum Plumber for schedule caste category. In terms of the letter dated 25.02.2015, respondent no. 3 forwarded its intention for filling up one post to all the JNV of all region, employment exchange and displayed on notice board and also forwarded to Sanik Kalyan Board. Not only this, advertisement was also advertised on the website of the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Bandrol, Kullu indicating the last date for submission of application as 31.08.2015. In respect of above advertisement as many as six candidates including the applicant applied. Vide letter dated 15.09.2015, respondent no. 3 constituted a committee for the verification of documents and the candidates were called for verification of documents on 17.09.2015 and five candidates appeared for verification of documents. As per the guidelines notified by respondents no. 1 & 2, respondent no. 3 conducted trade test which was held on 18.09.2015. It is thereafter, they were allowed to appear in trade test which was conducted by the Govt. Polytechnic Seo Bagh through Foremen Instructor. It is thereafter respondent no. 3 requested the Vidyalaya Appointment Committee to attend the meeting on 29.09.2015 so that they can finalize the selection and declare the result. Committee declared the final list where the applicant was declared successful. Vide letter dated 05.10.2015, respondent no. 3 requested respondent no. 2 to give its approval for appointment of applicant for the post of Electrician cum Plumber as per the recommendation made by the Vidyalaya Appointment Committee. Vide impugned order dated 14.03.2016, respondent no. 2 refused to give its approval on the recommendation forwarded by respondent no. 3 on the pretext that they have not followed the guidelines dated 19.01.2012 and have returned the paper in original. The matter was again taken up by respondent no. 3 before Vidyalaya Appointment Committee, which again recorded its findings and forwarded their proposal to respondent no. 2 to give its approval but again tsame was rejected vide order dated 27.06.2016. Hence the present O.A.
4. The respondents resisted the claim of the applicant by filing the detailed written statement wherein they have submitted that since respondent no. 3 has not followed the guidelines issued by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Simithi (in short NVS) dated 19.01.2012, therefore, recommendations given by the committee for granting its approval for appointment of the applicant has been turned down. It has also been pleaded that since they have not published the advertisement in the local newspaper for wide publication, therefore, respondent no. 2 has rightly rejected the proposal.
5. We have heard Sh. D.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. D.R. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 & 3.
6. Sh. D.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that impugned decision by respondent no. 2 for not according its approval to the proposal given by respondent no. 3 for appointment of applicant on the plea that concerned authority has not followed instruction/guidelines dated 19.01.2012 issued by NVS by not giving wide publication in the newspaper in the local area is totally baseless just to deprive the applicant from his legitimate right. He , therefore, submitted that the respondents cannot be allowed to brush aside the recommendations made by respondent no. 3 in favour of applicant for appointment to the post of Electrician cum Plumber. To substantiate his plea, he submitted that once the respondents have followed the procedure by inviting the name from Employment Exchange and also from Sanik Kalyan Board, apart from that they have also pasted the advertisement on notice board and also advertised the advertisement for the post in question on the website of the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Bandrol, Kullu, therefore, it cannot lie in the mouth of the respondents that wide publication has not been given to fill the post of Electrician cum Plumber by way of direct recruitment. Merely by not issuing advertisement in the local newspaper does not give right to the respondents to turn down the recommendations made by the Vidyalaya Appointment Committee for giving its approval for appointment of the applicant. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in case of Buddhadeb Ruidas and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2013 (12) SCC 221.
7. Per contra, Sh. D.R. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that to have a transparency in the appointment for the post in question, NVS headquarter had already issued the guidelines dated 19.01.2012 for filing the post under Group C Non Ministerial which was based upon the decision passed by the Honble Patna High Court in case of NVS & Ors. Vs. Harendra Kumar & Ors. (CWP No. 10478/2003) decided on 06.04.2010. Since respondent no. 3 has not notified the vacancy in the local newspaper for wide publication, thus, respondent no. 2 had decided not to give final approval and ordered to undergo for fresh selection process for the post in question. It is argued that since they have not followed the said procedure as laid down in guidelines dated 19.01.2012, therefore, their recommendation has been turned down by respondent no. 2.
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and have perused the pleadings as available on record and also gone through judgment cited thereupon, with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. On perusal of impugned order, it is evincible that ground to turn down the request was that there was no open advertisement in the local newspaper and no advertisement was published on the website of vidyalaya, therefore, respondent no. 2 rejected the recommendations for direct recruitment. Conjunctive perusal of pleadings leaves no doubt that for Group C Ministerial Post/ non-teaching staff under NVS headquarter guidelines has already been issued which is based upon the decision by the Honble Patna High Court where Honble High Court impressed that for filling up the direct vacancy, the employer is under obligation to notify the vacancy in the local newspaper which has wide circulation so that all eligible candidates in the vicinity can apply against the notified vacancy. It is also not disputed that while inviting applications for the post in question, respondent no. 3 has not issued advertisement in the Local Newspaper as envisaged in the guidelines dated 19.01.2012. They only called the candidates from Employment Exchange and have pasted the notice on notice board and cleverly advertised the notification on their own website only but same has not been done on website of NVS. As many as six applications were received and out of total, 5 candidates including applicant, was found eligible and subjected to trade test and ultimately the applicant who was continuing with the respondents since 2008, was selected and recommendations were made in his favour by Vidalaya Appointment Committee of respondent no. 3. There can be no scintilla of doubt that there was requirement of advertisement for filling up the vacancy under direct recruitment so that wide publication can be made and eligible candidates be given chance to apply for the said post. Merely calling the candidates from Employment Exchange or from Sainik Kalyan Board, cannot be said that the employer has discharged his duties of wide publication of vacancy for inviting applications from eligible candidates. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order because the decision taken by respondent no. 2 for not according its approval to the recommendations made by Committee for appointment does not suffer from any arbitrariness, rather this is based upon the guidelines dated 19.01.2012 where headquarter of NVS has laid down the guidelines for appointment of non-teaching staff in JNV. Once there are guidelines, nobody can be allowed to side track or bypass these guidelines when the same is based upon the decision where JNVs have been directed to follow the said procedure for filling up the vacancy by issuing the advertisement to remove the arbitrariness. Hence, O.A is dismissed being devoid of merit.
10. No costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 03.07.2017
`jk.
2
OA No. 063/00081/2016 etc..