Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vellore Padmanabhan Arunagiri vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 5 August, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.9/2011 New Delhi, this the 5th day of August, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Vellore Padmanabhan Arunagiri S/o Late M. Padmanabhan R/o F-2, Saiprasad Apartments, 9/33, Velnagar Extension, Main Road, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri Satish Mishra for Sh. Sujit K. Singh) Versus 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Bharat Sanchar Bhawan Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi 110 001 Through its Chairman and Managing Director 2. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110 001. Respondents. (By Advocate : Shri Rajnish Prasad) : O R D E R : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
By this OA, the Applicant who is working in the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) and has appeared for the post of DGM in the Telecom Management Services (TMS in short) securing 30th rank for filling up 150 vacancies in BSNL is aggrieved by the action of the Respondents whereby those who are below his merit have been appointed to the TMS ignoring his claims. Thus, he has approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking direction to the Respondents to issue appointment letter to him to the post of DGM in TMS and consequently to maintain his seniority as per the merit list.
2. We may briefly give the facts of the case as are relevant to adjudicate the issue raised by the Applicant in the present OA. The Respondents Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL in short) issued an advertisement calling for applications for recruitment to fill up 150 vacancies in the cadre of DGMs in Telecom Management Services. The Applicant applied for the said post in the Telecom Management Services vide his Application Form dated July 22, 2009 (Annexure-A2). He was successful in the written examination and was called for personal interview on 26.02.2010. It is the case of the Applicant that he secured 30th rank in the merit list among 115 selected candidates for the post of DGM in TMS. While 41 selected candidates including some of those who were below in merit list were issued appointment letters, the Applicant was ignored. It is his case that he came to know through informal query from the Respondents that he was not eligible for the said post as he did not have minimum of three years of experience as on 1.08.2009 in E-4 grade as defined in DPE Guidelines which was the criteria for persons having PSU experience. He was verbally informed that he would not be appointed as he did not have the said eligibility criteria. It is seen from the advertisement that the criteria connotes as E-4 grade as defined in DPE Guidelines (IDA pre-revised pay scale of `14500-350-18700/Revised IDA Scale `29100-54500) in case of PSU experience. The Applicant informed Respondent No.1 that he had worked as AGM Grade-C in IDBI for more than 3 years in the pre revised pay scale of `17525-700(5)-21025-800 (4)-24225-EB-800 (3)-26625. His case is that the E-4 of IDA pay scale was `14500-350-18700 (pre-revised) and the pay scale that the Applicant was getting in IDBI (Banking Sector PSU) though totally different was higher than the PSU in IDA pay scales. It is the case of the Applicant that he approached the Respondents often from July to December, 2010 but having received no positive response to his representations he came to this Tribunal in the instant OA.
3. Shri Satish Mishra appearing on behalf of Shri S. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the Applicant would submit that the Applicant had more than 3 years of experience in PSU Bank viz IDBI and was drawing basic salary of `21025 which would have been revised to `33300 which was more than the starting basic pay (`132900) of DGM in TMS. Further, he contends that the Applicants pay scale in IDBI was equivalent and even better than the pay scale prescribed for the DGM post in the advertisement. He drew analogy of appointments being made from the Banking sector in NTPC, PFC and HEC (the PSUs with IDA pay scales) to advance the plea that the Applicant having secured 30th rank should be given appointment in BSNL as DGM. It is further contended that insisting upon IDA pre revised IDA scale of `14500-350-18700/revised IDA pay scale of `29100-54500 in case of PSU experience by the Respondents was arbitrary and discriminatory as there was no parity/equivalent pay scales in the PSU Banking Sector and CDA pay scales. Relying on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus P. K. Roy [AIR 1968 SC 850], Shri Mishra would contend that pay scale would not be the correct factor to compare two posts but other factors like nature of duties, qualification, responsibilities and functions to be discharged in two posts would be more relevant for finding out equivalence.
4. We have carefully gone through the judgment relied by learned counsel but notice that the law laid by the Honble Apex Court was basically on the issue of equal pay for equal work and the said judgment would not be applicable in the present OA as the facts and issues are different and dissimilar.
5. The Respondents in their reply affidavit dated 05.05.2011 have controverted the grounds taken by the Applicant. Shri Rajnish Prasad, learned Counsel representing the Respondents would contend that the Applicant having been fully aware that his candidature would be cancelled if he was found not eligible as per eligibility criteria in the advertisement, he furnished information that he had 3 years of work experience as on 1.08.2009 in E-4 grade of IDA pay scale under DPE Guidelines. Shri Prasad took us through the advertisement, application form, declaration etc. to highlight that provisional selection of successful candidates would not vest any right for appointment to the post of DGM in TMS. If such candidates are found not eligible at any stage in the selection process and even before appointment, no offer of appointment will be issued. Shri Prasad submits that in case of Applicant, the Respondents found him not eligible as per Para 3.3 of the advertisement. Hence, he pleads that the OA should be dismissed.
6. Having heard the contentions of the rival parties, with the assistance of the counsels, we perused the pleadings. The issue for our consideration is in narrow compass i.e. whether the Applicant fulfills the eligibility criteria laid down in the Advertisement issued for recruitment of DGM in TMS?
7. Para 3 of the Advertisement (Annexure-A1) provides various eligibility aspects which inter alia envisages the eligibility criteria/work experience in para 3.3, which reads thus:-
3.3 Eligibility criteria/Work Experience Candidates from public sector, private sector and government are eligible to apply. All candidates, however, must fulfill all three criteria mentioned below:
Twelve (12) years of post qualification working experience, as on 01.08.2009.
Minimum of 3 years of experience as on 01.08.2009 in E-4 grade as defined in DPE guidelines [IDA pre-revised scale Rs.14500-350-18700/Revised IDA Scale Rs.29100-54500] in case of PSU experience or Equivalent annual gross salary, which comes to approximately Rs. Seven lacs gross, in case of private sector or CDA scale Rs.10000-325-15200 (pre-revised scale in case of government posts)
iii) Minimum work experience of 5 years, as on 01.08.2009, in a company with an annual turnover more than Rs.100 Cr. (in case of PSU, Private Companies) Conforming to the provisions in Para 3.3, the prescribed application form in Column 12 seeks the applicants to provide information on work experience as applicable. There are three alternatives. The Applicant in his application form dated 22.07.2009 (available at Annexure-A2 of the paper book) furnished the following:-
12. Work Experience (write, as applicable) Do you have minimum 12 years of post-qualification working experience as on 01.08.2009 (write Yes/No) Yes Out of 12 years of Post Qualification work experience, indicate in which of the following you have minimum 3 years of experience, as on 01.08.2009 (write Yes/No/Not applicable-as the case may be) E-4 Grade as defined in DPE guidelines [IDA pre-revised scale Rs.14500-350-18700/Revised IDA Scale Rs.29100-54500] in case of PSU experience Equivalent annual gross salary, which comes to approximately Rs.7 lacs gross, in case of private sector CDA scale Rs.10000-325-15200 (pre-revised scale in case of government posts) YES Do you have minimum work experience of 5 years, as on 01.08.2009, in a company with an annual turnover of more than Rs.100 Cr. (in case of PSU. Private companies) (Write Yes/No/Not Applicable-as the case may be) YES
8. It is noted that the Applicants were put on alert in the said advertisement. Para 12 (ii) specifically stipulates that Applicants must provide true and correct information and if the same is found to be wrong, more specifically, on the eligibility conditions, the success of the Applicants will not confer any right of appointment. In Para 6 dealing with minimum qualifying standards it is envisaged that the appearance of the name in the merit list does not confer any right on the candidate for employment and final appointment letter will be issued to the successful candidates after completion of all other formalities. It is noticed from Annexure-R1 that the Respondents have transparently uploaded the provisional offer of appointment of DGM (Telecom operation) which inter alia provides list of successfully selected candidates, marks secured by the candidates and provides the information that the selection to the post of DGM is purely provisional subject to the fulfillment of all eligibility conditions.
9. From a careful and close scrutiny of the pleadings, we find that the Applicant does not fulfill the work experience condition as part of the eligibility criteria, in the sense that he has indicated Yes in Column showing E-4 Grade as defined in DPE Guidelines [IDA pre revised scale `14500-350-18700 (Revised IDA scale `29100-54500] in case of PSU experience of minimum of 3 years as on 01.08.2009. He worked in IDBI as AGM which is a PSU Bank for little more than 3 years (April 2008 to May 2009) but he was not in the IDA pay scale in E4 grade as per DPE Guidelines. The Applicant was in IDBI drawing different pay scale. As per the Applicants admission he was working in Grade-C scale of IDBI from 04.04.2005 which was in the pay scale of `11200-475 (9)-15472-EB-475(3)-16900. This scale was revised on 03.08.2006 with effect from 01.11.2002 and the revised IDBI pay scale was `17525-700 (5)-21025-800 (4)-24225-EB-800 (3)-26625. This pay scale was further revised with effect from 01.11.2007 to `25700-1000 (1)-26700-1100 (12)-39900-1250 (6)-47400. The Applicant worked in Grade-C pay scale in IDBI with effect from 04.04.2005 to 01.07.2008. It is noticed that from 04.04.2005 to 01.10.2007 the Applicant worked in the revised IDBI pay scale of `17525-700 (5)-21025-800 (4)-24225-EB-800(3)-26625 and from 01.11.2007 to 01.07.2008 he got the revised pay scale of `25700-1000 (1)-26700-1100(12)-39900-1250(6)-47400. It is seen from the advertisement that the eligibility requirement was minimum 3 years experience as on 01.08.2009 in E-4 Grade as defined in DPE guidelines (IDA pre-revised scale `14500-350-18700/Revised IDA Scale `29100-54500). It is pertinent to note that as on 01.08.2006 with respect to DPE scales applicable in BSNL the IDA rate was 60.4% while corresponding IDA rate in IDBI was 21.6%. Hence, as on 1.8.2006 the unrevised induction level/basic E-4 scale of DPE is added with IDA of 60.4% then the same comes to `23285 while if the Grade-C revised basic of IDBI scale is added with IDA of 21.6% the same comes to only `21310, which is less than the DPE basic salary of E-4. In other words, as on 1.08.2006, the Applicant was drawing lesser basic salary. The Respondents have furnished a comparison of pay scale in the Chart at Annexure R2, which clarifies the above position. We also note that the DPE scales were revised on 01.01.2007 and the E-4 grade was having the revised pay scale of `29100-54500. The IDBI scales were also further revised from 01.11.2007 and the Grade-C scale thereof became `25700-47400 which is lesser than the E-4 grade as defined in DPE guidelines. We, therefore, agree with the analysis made by the Respondents to demonstrate that the Applicant was never having the E-4 grade as defined in the DPE guidelines since 01.08.2006 and hence he did not fulfill the prescribed/required eligibility condition.
10. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we come to the considered conclusion that Applicant does not fulfill the eligibility criteria as per the advertisement issued for recruitment of DGM in TMS. Thus, the Applicant fails to establish his case. Resultantly, finding no merits in the case, OA is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (V. K. Bali) Member (A) Chairman /pj/