Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Rimpy Sharma vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 26 July, 2024
1- O.A. No. 821/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/821/2019
Pronounced on:26.07.2024
Reserved on: 04.07.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Rimpy Sharma, age 28 years, wife of Sh. Vikas Sharma, Resident of
House No.5058, Street No.2/9, Shiv Colony, Kaithal Road, Karnal,
Haryana - 132001.
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Barjesh Mittal)
Versus
1. India Council of Agricultural Research through its Director General,
Krishi Bhavan, Dr Rajendra Prasad Road, Opposite Rail Bhavan, New
Delhi-110001.
2. Director, National Dairy Research Institute, Near Jewels Hotel, GT
Road, Karnal, Haryana-132001.
3. Senior Administrative Officer, National Dairy Research Institute, Near
Jewels Hotel, GT Road, Karnal, Haryana-132001.
... .Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. R.K. Sharma)
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief:-
(i) That direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to respondents no. 2 and 3 directing them to consider the candidature of the applicant for the post of Technical Assistant (T-3) workshop being placed at Sr. No. 1 in the reserved select 2- O.A. No. 821/2019 list for general category candidate and on account of non joining/cancellation of candidature of selected candidate at Sr. No. 3 of General category, to offer her appointment on the said post forthwith from the due date with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that in response to the advertisement notice dated 16.01.2016 (Annexure A-1), the applicant applied for the post of Technical Assistant (T-3). She appeared in the written examination held on 17.07.2016. The respondent no. 3 vide OM dated 22.02.2018 (Annexure A-3) uploaded the provisional revised select list/reserved list on the Institute Website, as per merit in the marks statement received from Agricultural Scientist Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as 'ASRB') wherein the name of the applicant was at Sr. No. 1 in the provisional reserve/waiting list for general candidates, having secured 69 marks in the examination. The respondent no. 3, vide O.M. dated 13.02.2019 (Annexure A-4), declared the final select list for the post of Technical Assistant (T-3). Thereafter, another final comprehensive select list was again prepared and uploaded vide communication dated 06.03.2019 (Annexure A-5) instructing the selected candidates to remain present in the Institute on 15.03.2019 along with their testimonials in original for scrutiny. The applicant stands at the same place i.e. at Sr. No. 1 of the reserve list. The respondent no. 3, vide notice dated 25.03.2019 (Annexure A-6), granted one final opportunity to those selected candidates, who could not appear on 15.03.2019, to appear on 09.04.2019 for document verification. The selected candidate at Sr. No. 3 namely Sh. Navindra Sikarwar neither 3- O.A. No. 821/2019 appeared for scrutiny of documents on 15.03.2019 nor on 09.04.2019, therefore, his candidature for the said post stood cancelled. The applicant pleaded that since he was at Sr. No. 1 in the reserve list, she has to be offered appointment for the post of Technical Assistant (T-3) after one selected candidature did not join the post, but the respondents did not offer appointment to the applicant, which is arbitrary and illegal. The applicant submitted representation dated 15.07.2019 (Annexure A-
8) to respondent no. 1 requesting that though the ASRB conveyed the final result on 14.08.2018 but the same having been declared/uploaded on 13.02.2019/06.03.2019 is still in operation up to August, 2019, therefore, she be offered appointment to the post of Technical Assistant (T-3). The respondents did not take any action on the representation.
3. The contention of the applicant is that as per the communication dated 19.07.2018, the competent authority in the Council/Respondent no. 1 has approved the proposal to use the reserve panel (as approved by the ASRB) for the post of Technical Assistant (T-3) within six months from the date, the ASRB conveys to the Institute/ the respondents, the final vetted list of successful candidates along with the final reserved list and since the office of respondent no. 1 issued the final comprehensive select list on website on 06.03.2019, therefore, the reserve panel list shall remain in vogue for a period of six months thereafter i.e. up to 05.09.2019 and thus, the applicant is eligible for appointment against the post of Technical Assistant (T-3).
4. The respondents contested the claim of the applicant by filing written statement. It has been stated that since the ASRB conveyed the final result having Select List of 45 candidates and Final Reserve List of 4- O.A. No. 821/2019 122 candidates to the Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.08.2018 (Annexure R-4), therefore the reserve list was valid only up to 13.02.2019. The department requested the Respondent No. 1 to extend the validity of the reserve panel from six months to one year vide letter dated 09.05.2019 (Annexure R-10), but the same has not been approved vide letter dated 27.05.2019 (Annexure R-11) by the Competent Authority and directed to start fresh recruitment process. On these grounds, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
5. The applicant filed rejoinder. She has stated that against four advertised post of Technical Assistant (T-3), only one person has joined and the other three posts are lying vacant, therefore, the applicant, being at Sr. No. 1 in reserve list requires to be called for appointment against the said post. It has been further contended that though the ASRB conveyed the result to the respondents on 13.08.2018 prescribing the validity of reserve list for six months, but the respondents published the final result on 13.02.2019 and thereby exhausted the total validity period of reserve panel.
6. The applicant, by way of M.A. No. 1229/2020, has placed on record documents to show that another department under the Respondent No. 2 i.e ICAR namely Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) advertised the post of Technical Assistant (T-3) for which the examination was conducted by ASRB on 17.07.2016 itself. The ASRB conveyed the result to the IARI on 17.07.2018 and the result was published on 15.12.2018 by the concerned department. The IARI utilised the reserve list to offer appointment to the waiting list candidate vide letter dated 29.04.2019 i.e. after nine months it was conveyed by 5- O.A. No. 821/2019 the ASRB to it. The applicant contends that the action of the respondent in not utilising the reserve panel and not offering appointment to the applicant is arbitrary and illegal. The respondents filed reply to the MA stating that the mistake committed by the IARI cannot be made a precedent for NDRI and it does not give indefensible right to the applicant to claim appointment.
7. We have gone through the pleadings, perused the documents and considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for both sides.
8. The issue requires consideration in the instant matter is as to whether the reserve panel list prepared by the ASRB would be treated as exhausted before the declaration of final merit list to the post of Technical Assistant (T-3).
9. The admitted facts of the case are that the applicant being fully eligible applied to the post of Technical Assistant (T-3) in response to advertisement dated 16.01.2016 under General category, having bachelor degree in Electronics and Communications. The applicant appeared in the written examination held on 17.07.2016 and secured 69 marks. The respondent no. 3 vide OM dated 22.02.2018, on the basis of marks statement received from ASRB, prepared the purely provisional select list/reserved list and uploaded on the website of the Institute. The total four candidates, including three candidates for general category and one candidate for OBC category were declared provisionally selected to the aforesaid post. The name of the applicant found place at Sr. No. 1 in the provisional reserve list of Technical Assistant (T-3). The respondent no. 3 in continuation of aforesaid O.M. dated 22.02.2018, after considering the representation received from 6- O.A. No. 821/2019 the candidates, declared/uploaded the final select list on 13.02.2019, having vetted by the ASRB vide letter dated 13.02.2018. There was no change in the name of candidates in the select list as well as reserved list. The selected candidates were directed to report for the document verification on 15.03.2019. However, the candidates, who could not report for document verification were granted one more final opportunity to finally report to respondent no. 3 on 09.04.2019, vide notice dated 25.03.2019 with remarks that in case of further absence on the scheduled date and time along with requisite documents for verification, the candidature to the post of Technical Assistant (T-3) shall stand cancelled automatically without any further notice.
10. The applicant came to know that selected candidate at Sr. No. 3 in the final select list namely Mr. Navindra Sikarwar neither appeared for scrutiny of documents on 15.03.2019 nor on 09.04.2019, therefore, his candidature to the post of Technical Assistant (T-3) stood cancelled automatically. The applicant pleaded that she being at Sr. No. 1 in the reserved panel list should be called for and offered appointment to the aforesaid post. It is seen that during selection process, the respondent no. 1 provided the guidelines/instructions to the Institution under him on the issue as to whether the vacancy arising after conduct of examination can be filled up by using the reserved panel. The respondent no. 1 in the light of instructions contained in DOP&T O.M. dated 13.06.2000, examined the issue and guided the subordinate Institutes/Zonal Coordinating Units on the issue of operation of reserve panels that the vacancy, which was not included in the advertisement and/or vacancy arises after declaration of result may not be filled up by 7- O.A. No. 821/2019 using the reserve panel. In other words, only those vacancies, which were advertised for filling up may be filled up by using the reserve panel subject to the condition imposed by the DOP&T in the O.M. dated 13.06.2000.
11. Further, the Competent Authority i.e. Respondent no. 1 approved the proposal to use the reserve panel (as approved by the ASRB) for the post of Technical Assistant (T-3) within six months from the date the ASRB conveys the final vetted list of successful candidates along with final reserve list to the Institute. From the perusal of Annexure A-7 dated 19.07.2018, it is evident that the respondent no. 1 has accorded approval to the proposal of using the reserve panel to the post of Technical Assistant (T-3) within six months from the date of final vetted list as approved by the ASRB to the respondent no. 3.
12. From the conjoint reading of Annexure A-7 and O.M. dated 13.06.2000, we find that the six months period of reserve panel fixed by the respondent no. 1 is not in consonance with the stipulation in O.M. dated 13.06.2000, which provides that the request for nomination from the reserve list may be made within a period of one year from the date of joining. The relevant para is extracted as under for better understanding.
"2. The Fifth Central Pay Commission, in para 17.11 of its Report, has recommended that with a view to reduce delay in filling up of the posts, vacancies resulting from resignation or death of an incumbent within one year of his appointment should be filled immediately by the candidate from the reserve panel, if a fresh panel is not available by then. Such a vacancy 8- O.A. No. 821/2019 should not be treated as a fresh vacancy. This recommendation has been examined in consultation with the UPSC and it has been decided that in future, where a selection has been-made through UPSC, a request for nomination from the reserve list, if any, may be made to the UPSC in the event of occurrence of a vacancy caused by non-joining of the candidate within the stipulated time allowed for joining the post or where a candidate joins but he resigns or dies within a period of one year from the date of his joining, if a fresh panel is not available by then. Such a vacancy should not be treated as fresh vacancy."
13. It is an admitted fact that against 04 advertised posts of Technical Assistant (T-3), only one candidate at Sr. No. 2 in the select list namely Smt. Sneh joined the said post and remaining three posts are still lying vacant. The final result conveyed by the ASRB was not declared by the respondents for a period of six months i.e. from 13.08.2018 to 13.02.2019 which has rendered the reserve panel redundant having no fault of the applicant. Therefore, the respondents treated the reserve list to have been exhausted during the aforesaid period of six months. If we accept the contention of respondent no. 1, then we are unable to understand that what was the object of preparing reserve list and use thereof within six months from the date of convey of list to the respondent by the ASRB. We are of the view that in no circumstances the revised list can be treated as expired prior to the declaration of final result viz.a.viz occurrence of vacancies due to non- joining of selected candidates.
9- O.A. No. 821/2019
14. Undisputedly, ASRB has conveyed the approval of the competent authority of Board to the select list of 45 candidates and 122 reserve list candidates for various posts including the post of Technical Assistant (T-
3). The ASRB has also categorically advised that the reserve list will be operative only, if the candidate in the Select List do not accept the offer of appointment and further subject to guidelines issues by DOP&T/ICAR in this regard. The duly verified Select/Reserve list was conveyed to the respondents no. 2 and 3 vide communication dated 13.08.2018. It was also advised by the ASRB that the Institute should first display the final result (Select List) in public domain viz. on Institute's website, newspapers etc. before issuing the offer of appointment to the selected candidates. The final result duly vetted by the ASRB was first time uploaded by the respondents on website vide order dated 13.02.2019. The denial of request for extension of reserve panel list by respondent no. 1 made the reserve list as redundant, which is not in consonance with the object of making reserve list. The respondent no. 3 by various communications (Annexure R-10 to 12) requested the respondent no. 1 to allow operation of reserve panel within a period of one year from the date of convey of approval of ASRB w.e.f. 13.08.2018. They have referred to instructions of DOP&T on the issue. It was also requested that if the waiting list/reserve panel was not allowed to operate, then many posts, which were advertised in 2016, will be time-barred and even deemed to be abolished, which will be a great loss to the Institute. However, respondent no. 1 vide annexure R-11 has not conceded the request of respondent no. 3 and directed to start the fresh recruitment process for the post of Technical Assistant (T-3). No reasons 10- O.A. No. 821/2019 whatsoever for not allowing Respondents No. 2 and 3 to operate the reserve list has been given by Respondent No. 1
15. We find that vide aforesaid O.M., it has also been specified that where a selections for posts under the Central Government are made through other recruiting agencies such as Staff Selection Commission or by the Ministries/Department directly and the reserve panels are similarly prepared, the procedure for operation of reserve panels maintained by UPSC as described in para 2 above will also be applicable for the reserve panels maintained by the other recruiting agencies/authorities.
16. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents being an autonomous body are governed by their own rules and that the O.M. dated 13.06.2000 are general guidelines regarding operation of reserve panel, therefore, they are not bound to follow the same. The contention of the respondents is misconceived as it was decided by the DOP&T that the guidelines stipulated in para 2 of the O.M. will also be applicable for the reserve panel maintained by the other recruiting agencies/authorities. Even, respondent no. 1 himself has examined the issue regarding use of reserve panel list in the light of instructions contained in the aforesaid O.M. as referred to in the Annexure A-7.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the applicant has not challenged Annexure A-7, therefore, the instant O.A. is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the order dated 16.09.2024 passed in the case of Om Parkash Dhiman Vs. Union of India and Others (O.A. No. 11- O.A. No. 821/2019 31/HP/2013) by this Tribunal thereby dismissing the O.A., on the ground that the quashing of notification dated 22.02.2012, which is the basis of the impugned order has not been challenged by the applicant therein. We find no force in the argument of learned counsel for the respondents as the Annexure A-7 issued by respondent no. 1, has not been issued on the basis of any O.M. The respondent no. 1 himself has examined the issue in terms of instructions contained in DOP&T O.M. dated 13.06.2000, which itself provides the period of one year to request nomination from the reserve list. We are also of the view that there was no ground to challenge Annexure A-7 by the applicant in seeking relief as prayed for in the instant O.A.
18. Since the respondents have not initiated the process of fresh recruitment to the post of Technical Assistant (T-3) and three posts are still lying vacant, therefore, the candidature of the applicant being at Sr. No. 1 of the reserve panel is to be considered by the respondents for appointment on account of non-joining/cancellation of candidature of select list candidate at Sr. No. 3. The Original Application is allowed. The needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
'mw'