Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Central Administrative Tribunal vs Union Of India on 31 August, 2012
1 OA NO.471/2009 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.471/2009 DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2012. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. BASHEER, MEMBER (J). HON'BLE SHRI R.C. JOSHI, MEMBER (A) Shri Shagir F Siddique R/at. Room No.113, Building No.9, D. Babab Saheb Ambedkar Society, Vasi Naka, Chembur, Mumbai 74. ... Applicant ( By Advocate Shri S.V. Marne) VERSUS 1. Union of India, through the General Manager, Central Railway, Head Quarters Office, Mumbai CST, Mumbai -1 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai Division, Mumbai CST, Mumbai 1. ... Respondents ( By Advocate Shri V.S. Masurkar). O R D E R (Oral) Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Basheer, Member (J)
This Original Application has unravelled the baffling and disturbing scenario scripted by the Central Railway in the selection process held for recruitment to the two Group 'D' Posts earmarked for "Scouts & Guides" for the year 2005-2006.
2. Pursuant to a notification issued by the Central Railway for the purpose of the recruitment referred to above, a written test was held on March 18, 2006.
2 OA NO.471/2009Admittedly, 42 eligible candidates participated in the written examination, out of which five candidates who obtained maximum marks, were invited for viva-voce test that was held on March 22, 2006. Two candidates, namely Shri Rajavat P. Kumar and the Applicant were found eligible for selection to the two vacant posts and they were, accordingly, empanelled in the select list in that order.
3. It appears that at this stage a complaint was received by the Administration raising some allegations against the selection process. The matter was, therefore, referred to the Vigilance Branch in the office of the General Manager. After conducting a detailed investigation, the Vigilance Department, submitted its report on May 24, 2007 concluding that the complaint arose apparently because of the divergence in interpreting the Rules for recruitment. It was noticed that different norms were being followed by various Divisions for recruitment against "the Scouts and Guides quota". For instance the Mumbai Division under Central Railway had adopted different a norm (which was of course permissible) as compared to other Divisions. The Mumbai Division had followed the guidelines stipulated in the Railway Board's letter dated May 31, 1989 and invited five candidates for viva-voce test against the two vacancies which were notified.
3 OA NO.471/20094. The Vigilance noticed that the Chief Personnel Officer, Central Railway, CST in his letter dated November 22, 2006 (admittedly after the entire selection process was over) had issued certain directions for inviting more candidates for viva-voce on the basis of marks obtained by them in the written examination. The Vigilance observed that the above mode of selection varied from the selection process followed by the Mumbai Division which was of course ratified by CPO, CST, Mumbai. In short, after dealing with each and every allegation raised in the two complaints, the Vigilance concluded in Annexure A-8 report that there was no irregularity in the selection process held by the Administration.
5. In this context it may incidentally be noticed that the Vigilance had found that the Applicant ought to have been placed at Serial No.1 in the panel of selectees since he had obtained one mark more (65) than the other candidate namely Shri Rajavat P. Kumar (64 marks). This is indicated in Annexure A-9 communication issued by the Vigilance on July 25, 2007 addressed to the Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Mumbai. In this communication the Vigilance had also suggested that in case of any doubt regarding any aspect of selection, necessary guidelines should be obtained from CPO before conducting the selection.
6. However, the Administration did not take any 4 OA NO.471/2009 further step to issue appointment orders to the two selectees in question. According to the Applicant he had been knocking at the doors of the Administration ever since. But no response came from any of the officers concerned. Ultimately in January, 2007 the Applicant had approached the Competent Authority in the Administration under the Right to Information Act. In Annexure A-5 communication dated September 30, 2008 the Additional General Manager, Public Information Cell (Headquarters) under the Central Railway informed the Applicant thus :
"1. Vigilance enquiry revealed that none of the allegations made by the complainant was substantiated.
2. It is stated that Vigilance report has not recommended scrapping of the selection held on 18.03.2006 for Group D against Scouts & Guide quota.
3. The case papers were returned to the selection conducting department by vigilance branch on 07.01.2007."(emphasis supplied)
7. Still later, by communication dated November 19, 2008 the Applicant was informed by the Divisional Office, Commercial Branch, Mumbai CST thus:
1. The selection for the post of Group 'D' category against Scouts & Guides quota is not yet finalised since certain clarification is being called by this office from HQ.
2. 3 & 4. The selection is not yet finalized due to the waiting for clarification from HQ hence the marks cannot be given to you until the finalization of the selection.
8. The Applicant has filed this Original 5 OA NO.471/2009 Application apparently after being convinced that the Respondents were not likely to issue order of appointment to him pursuant to the above selection process. The primary prayer is to issue an appropriate direction to the Respondents to finalise the selection conducted for filling up the two Group 'D' posts earmarked against the Scouts and Guides Quota and to appoint the Applicant to the above post with all consequential benefits.
9. In the written statement the Respondents revealed for the first time that after considering the report of vigilance department, the panel has been finally scrapped vide letter dated June 30, 2009." But curiously, the Respondents have not produced either the letter referred to above, or the order, if any issued by the Administration in this regard. Admittedly such an order had never been communicated to the Applicant at any point of time.
10. The Respondents have, of-course, made an attempt to justify the above decision stating inter- alia that in the selection process in question, the Administration had followed the directions issued by the Railway Board circular dated May 31, 1989. But in November 2006 the Headquarters had informed the Administration that all the candidates who secured pass percentage marks in the written examination ought to have been called for interview. Still later, 6 OA NO.471/2009 on August 28, 2008 the Headquarters clarified that candidates to the extent of 10 times the number of vacancies ought to have been invited for the interview, as indicated in Board's letter dated July 18, 2005.
11. In the light of the above contentions raised by the Respondents, we had called for the original file relating to the selection process in question. The file revealed that the Vigilance had unambiguously made it clear that there was no irregularity in the selection process. Infact, the Vigilance had found that the Applicant should have been placed at Sr. No.1 ahead of the other candidate. This was the only error or discrepancy noticed by the Vigilance. It is true that the Vigilance found that various divisions in the Central Railway were following different norms for selection as regards the number of candidates to be invited for interview.
12. It is significant to note that the Respondents do not have a case that the procedure followed by them in this selection process was in any way in violation of the guidelines/regulations issued by the Railway Board. More importantly the Vigilance had found that there was no illegality or irregularity in the selection process, though it was suggested that in future necessary guidelines should be obtained before conducting selection.
13. As has been noticed already, 42 candidates had 7 OA NO.471/2009 participated in the written examination though 282 applications had been received in response to the notification. Out of these 42 candidates, only those 5 who obtained maximum marks in the written examination were invited for the viva-voce. These five candidates represented 2.5 times the number of vacancies. This norm followed by the Administration was admittedly in accord with the Board's letter of 1989. It is true that the matter was referred to the vigilance after finalising the panel of selectees, in view of the two complaints received against the selection process. Interestingly, the Vigilance Report (Annexure A-8) indicated that the grievance of the complainant related to inter-se seniority among the different panels of Scouts/Guides. In one of the two complainants it was vaguely mentioned that the procedure followed for inviting candidates for interview was not correct. Nothing more nothing less.
14. A perusal of the report submitted by the Vigilance will unambiguously show that all the allegations were found to be baseless. More importantly, the Vigilance had given its report in July 2007 itself. But the Administration slept over the matter thereafter. The file produced by the respondents reveals that in February, August and October, 2008 the Administration had made some queries to the Headquarters about the steps to be taken in the matter.
8 OA NO.471/2009Curiously, these queries did not have any apparent bearing on the selection that had already been completed. The Administration had evidently dragged its feet in the matter as could be seen from the file.
15. Stranger still, the Administration did not bother to take a final decision in the matter till June 30, 2009 when it allegedly decided to scrap the Select List. The reason stated by the Administration for doing so has already been indicated by us in the earlier part of this order which is totally untenable, to say the least.
16. It is seen from the file produced by the Respondents that the Divisional Railway Manager had approved the panel of selectees. But the select list was not published since the report of the Vigilance was being awaited. But it has been noticed already that Vigilance had submitted the report in July, 2007 itself. But for some inexplicable reason that Administration did not choose to either publish the list or issue orders of appointment to the selected candidates.
17. It is significant to note that the Administration has tried to justify scrapping of the list on the ground that the Headquarters had informed to invite all candidates who secured pass percentage marks in the written examination. The said communication was admittedly issued in November, 2006 9 OA NO.471/2009 by which time the entire selection process was over. The Administration has referred to yet another communication dated August 28, 2008 received from the Headquarters. In this communication, the Headquarters had reportedly indicated that the direction contained in Board's letter dated July 18, 2005 ought to have been followed, thereby meaning that candidates to the extent of 10 times the number of vacancies had to be invited for the interview. There is no explanation as to why the Administration went on seeking clarification from the Headquarters especially since the entire selection process was admittedly completed in March 2006 itself. If the Administration wanted to abide by the direction issued by the Headquarters in November, 2006, nothing would have prevented it from scrapping the list at that stage itself. But the Administration slept over the matter for nearly 2 years without any apparent reason. Even after receiving the communication from the headquarters in August 2008, no further action was taken in the matter. Stranger still, the decision to scrap the list was revealed for the first time in the written statement.
18. In our view the Administration was not at all justified to scrap the list which had been finalised way back in March 2006 itself. The Administration ought to have given a green signal to the list at least after obtaining a clean chit from the Vigilance in July 2007.
10 OA NO.471/2009In any view of the matter, we do not find any justification in denying appointment to the two selectees who are enlisted in the panel.
19. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Administration was probably persuaded not to appoint the two selectees since the recruitment in question was against the quota of the year 2005-06. Those vacancies ought to have been filled up within that year itself as otherwise they would have lapsed. We do not find any merit in this contention. In our view, the Applicant and the other selectee are entitled to be appointed, especially since the Respondents do not have a case that these two candidates were in any way responsible for this unfortunate turn of events. The Railway Administration is solely responsible for undoubtedly guilty of callous indifference in discharge of public duties.
20. For the aforesaid reason, the Original Application is allowed. Respondent No.1 shall issue order of appointment to the Applicant within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
21. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
(R.C. Joshi) (Justice A.K. Basheer) Member (A) Member (J) ma.