Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Lalu Mohar vs Chief Staff Officer (P&A) on 2 July, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 1057 of 2011
Original Application No. 174 of 2012
Monday, this the 2nd day of July, 2012
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R. Raman, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member
1. Original Application No. 1057 of 2011 -
1. Lalu Mohar, Lalu Nivas,
Vidakuzha, Thaikkattukara,
Aluva-683 106.
2. Vipin Mohan, Chitteth House,
Parakkadavu PO, Ernakulam.
3. Ajo George, Kandathinkara House,
Kizhakkambalam, Njaranalloor,
Ernakulam.
4. Ajimol George, Kandathinkara House,
Kizhakkambalam, Njaranalloor,
Ernakulam. ..... Applicants
(By Advocate - Mr. S. Sujin)
V e r s u s
1. Chief Staff Officer (P&A),
Southern Naval Command Head Quarters,
Kochi-682 004.
2. The Flag Officer, Commanding in Chief,
Head Quarters, Southern Naval Command,
Kochi-682 004.
3. Vipin T.P. Thittayil House, Ponurrinni,
Ernakulam - 682 019. ..... Respondents
[By Advocate - Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC (R1&2)]
2. Original Application No. 174 of 2012 -
Rahul A. Ravi, S/o. M.K. Ravi,
Mannu Cherayil, Perumpadanna,
North Paravur, Ernakulam. ..... Applicant
(By Advocate - Mr. Sujin)
V e r s u s
1. Chief Staff Officer (P&A),
Southern Naval Command Head Quarters,
Kochi-4.
2. The Flag Officer, Commanding in Chief,
Head Quarters, Southern Naval Command,
Kochi-4.
3. Vipin T.P. Thittayil House, Ponurrinni,
Ernakulam, Kochi - 682 019. ..... Respondents
[By Advocates - Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC (R1&2) &
M/s. K. Ramkumar Associates - Not present (R3)]
These applications having been heard on 22.06.2012, the Tribunal on
02.07.2012 delivered the following:
O R D E R
By Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member-
As both the above OAs pertain to the selection of Ammunition Repair Labour (Semi Skilled) by the respondents vide notification published in the Employment News dated 4-10th July, 2009, these OAs are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The applicants in the OAs had responded to the above notification. They had participated in the written test.
3. The grievance of the applicant in OA No. 1057 of 2011 is that the respondents have not published the result of the written examination. They seek a direction to the respondents to produce the list of candidates selected for interview together with the marks in the written test. As per the reply statement filed by the respondents the applicants had secured less marks than the marks prescribed for considering them for interview scheduled on 12-14th December, 2011. Candidates short listed based on the marks secured by them in the written test were called for the interview. The selected candidates only were informed of the selection as was stated in the notification. Further they have published the roll numbers of the selected candidates in Mathrubhoomi daily dated 5.6.2012. Hence, the OA No. 1057 of 2011 has become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed.
4. The grievance of the applicant in OA No. 174 of 2012 is that on seeing that he had failed in the SSLC examination, interview board did not proceed with his interview. He has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(1) To issue directions to the respondents to conduct the selection to the post of Ammunition Repair Labour (SS) strictly based on the conditions stipulated in Annexure A1 notification.
(2) To issue directions to the respondents to evaluate the applicant on the basis of his performance in the interview instead of discarding him from selection due to his failure in the SSLC exam.
(3) To issue any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.
(4) To award the cost of these proceedings."
5. The applicant contended that the qualification prescribed in the notification cannot be altered mid way through the selection process by the respondents. The Apex Court has held in Krushna Chandra Sahu (Dr.) Vs. State of Orissa - 1995 (6) SCC 1 that the selection committee does not have the inherent jurisdiction to lay down the norms for selection nor can such powers be assumed by necessary implication. In P. Mahendran Vs. State of Karnataka - 1990 (1) SCC 411 and Gopal Krushna Rath Vs. M.A.A. Baig -
1999 (1) SCC 544 the Apex Court has observed that once a process of selection starts the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed.
6. The respondents in the reply statement submitted that the educational qualification for the post of Ammunition Repair Labour (Semi Skilled) was shown as per the erstwhile SRO in respect of the post. However, at Note (1) of the notification it is clearly specified that on approval of the VIth Central Pay Commission recommendations by the Government all Group-D posts are upgraded to Group-C with effect from 1st January, 2006 and accordingly, minimum qualification required for such post is matriculation or equivalent. It was also mentioned therein that this aspect will be taken into consideration while short listing the applications for written test/interview. Further in Note (4) it was intimated that if the number of applications received is large the department may restrict the number of candidates to a reasonable limit on the basis of qualification/experience. The Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training have specifically indicated that there will be no further recruitment in Group-D. The existing Group-D post will be placed in Group- C and the minimum qualification for appointment to this level will be either 10th pass or ITI equivalent (Annexure R4). The applicant herein has the educational qualification of IXth standard and his application was not segregated for rejection due to the mentioning of the applicant in the application against the column educational qualifications that he had completed Xth standard. However, this mistake was corrected before completion of the final selection process. His candidature was not considered for final selection due to his failure to fulfil the requisite educational qualification prescribed in the notification. It was an oversight on the part of the concerned official that the applicant who had the educational qualification of IXth standard only was allowed to appear for the written test. Further it was submitted that this Tribunal had dismissed OA No. 622 of 2010 which is identical to the OA under consideration here.
7. The party respondent No. 3 contended that his selection was through due process in accordance with law.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. The contentions of the applicant are misconceived. So also his reliance on the judgements of the Apex Court is misplaced. The respondents have not altered the prescribed qualification in the notification mid way through the selection process. The failure is on the part of the applicant in not reading Note (1) of the notification published in the Employment News dated 4- 10.7.2009. As per Chapter 2.2.10 of the report of the VIth Central Pay Commission no direct recruitment in the 1S scale should take place and candidates not possessing the minimum qualification of Matriculation and/or ITI cannot be recruited and the existing Group-D posts are to be placed under Group-C. This recommendation of the Central Pay Commission was accepted by the Government of India. Therefore, the minimum qualification for the notified post to which the applicant responded is Matriculation or equivalent. This aspect was to be taken into consideration for short listing the applications for written/interview. The selection process was conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure in the notification. In doing so there was no arbitrariness resulting therein undue favour as is held in AIR 2012 SC 1803 - Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudullah Khan & Ors. The Apex Court in 2005 KHC 840 - Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Swapna & Ors. held that once a process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed. In the instant case selection process started with the notification in the Employment News dated 4-10.7.2009. The respondents have strictly adhered to the criteria prescribed in the notification. No change whatsoever was made.
10. Notwithstanding the above the respondents committed an inadvertent error in calling the applicant for interview though he was not qualified but that was due to the mentioning of the applicant in the application that he had passed Xth standard. This mistake was detected during the interview and corrective action was taken.
11. True, the Recruitment Rules for the notified posts are not revised taking into consideration the recommendation of the VIth CPC accepted by the Government of India. The only practical course of action was the one adopted by the respondents. Keeping the posts vacant till the new Recruitment Rules come into force will not be in public interest.
12. The selection committee in the instant case did not deviate from the rules any time nor did lay down norms for selection. None of the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the applicant comes to his aid.
13. OA No. 174 of 2012 is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 622 of 2010 dated 23rd September, 2010 which is reproduced as under:-
"4. We have heard the counsel appearing for the applicant Ms. A. Parvathy and the counsel appearing for the respondents Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC. The question to be decided is that whether rejection of the candidature of the applicant is correct or not. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the applicant is that since the Recruitment Rules for Group 'D' posts, the educational qualification fixed as VIIIth Standard and the notification does not specifically say that only candidates having SSLC/Matriculation qualification shall apply and as the selection process has been started, the department cannot take a stand that after the commencement of the VIth Pay Commission report, the educational qualification has been changed without amending the Recruitment Rules. To the above contention, the counsel for the respondents relies on Annexure R-1, the notification in 'Employment News' dated 4-10 July, 2009 in which it is specifically noted as per note No. 1 that after the commencement of the VIth CPC recommendation of the Group 'D' posts, the educational qualification shall be fixed as SSLC or above. If so, the contention now raised by the applicant is untenable.
5. We have considered Annexure R-1 in the light of the contention raised by the counsel appearing for the applicant, it is clearly stated in Annexure R-1 that "1. On perusal of VIth CPC recommendations by the Government all Group 'D' posts are upgraded to Group 'C' with effect from 01 Jan 06 and accordingly minimum qualification required to such posts is matriculation or equivalent. This aspect will also be taken into consideration while short listing the application for written test/interview." Even if the main notification does not contain the change or restriction of qualification is not a ground for interference with the present stand taken by the department. Further, we have noted that the Government of India has accepted the report of the VIth Pay Commission and approved the minimum educational qualification for Group 'D' as SSLC or above. Hence, we are of the considered view that the applicant has not made out a case for deciding in favour of him.
6. Hence, this Original Application fails and dismissed accordingly."
In the light of the above this Original Application is liable to be dismissed having no merit.
14. Accordingly, it is ordered as under:-
OA No. 1057 of 2011 is dismissed as infructuous.
OA No. 174 of 2012 is dismissed, being bereft of merits.
15. No order as to costs.
(K. GEORGE JOSEPH) (JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER "SA"