Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
A Kalaiselvi vs D/O Atomic Energy on 20 April, 2022
we RS AS in : REA TRONS CENTRAC ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAT BENCH Dated Nednciddy, the gu day of April, 2022 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI Y. JACOR, MEMBER(A) HON'BLE SHRI LATA BASWARAD PATNE, MEMBERID) A. Kalaiselvi, Wis. Anbaligan, No.i26, Madural Meenakshi Street. Amba! Nagar, Ekkatuy Thangal, Chennai-600 O32.
2 Agar (By Advocate: M/s. S.7. Veredareiae} | WS
1... Union of India Rep. by the Secretary, Department of Atomin Eneroy, CSM Marg, Anusakthi Bhavan, Mumibal- 400 GOL:
=. The Olrector, General Service Organisation, Gepartmant of Atomic Energy, Kaipakkam- 603 10s:
3. - daserthanan TR.
4.° - Gantt Bale Sriram:
§.. Karthikeyan &.
Ps Skarme Lo x. Srithtes §, i Hariharan
2. Senthamishavanan he BA fr, wet ie rs ee we oe tg.
a ae os iQ, Sarmesh &, fi. Arfuthe R:
te. Draishath &, iS. Servanan NK, is, - Aru) Garathy M, TS. Rurimavathi &, is. Sangeetha & {Resproretents 3 te iF Gio. The Mrector General Service Oroanisation, Department of Atomic Energy, Kaipakkame-S03 102 and notice to be sent them through 2° reepondant). . Respondents (By Advocate > Me K, Rajendran for RI & 2) OA INAS { Pronounced by Nan'ble Mr. T. Jacob, Mamberta)) The applicant has Med this O4 uncer Section 18 af the Adeninieeniice TWhunais Act, 1988 seeking the fvlewing relief "This Hon'ble THbunal may be pleased Go set aside the salect list anmoumces by Ose osalectian cemumitice purguant ta the advertisement No. GSO/OS/2018 deted 15.05.2019 so far as to the post of Work Assistant/A/Nospltal Work Assistant (A, Categary XIV and consequently direct the 2° respondent to conduct fresh interview an ment and In eccaniance with Rules and render justine"
# The brief facts of the case submitted by the applicant are ag follows:
The applicant attended the writhw best on 14.09.2014 for the post of Hosnital Work Assistant/A pursuant to the advertisement issued by the 2 respondent deted 15.5.2043. She performed wall in the written hast and passed Inthe test. - Hence, she was asked to attend the inhirview on 19.08.2014. In the Interview also she performed well and in the Intendew committer aise appreciated her performance. She belongs to Adi Dravida cormmunity, To her shock and surprise she came to kro that the result are being published in the Intemet and ae mame {s not found in the select st, Further in the interview they invited applications for 8 pasts. Sut they salacted 15 posts, His notonly against the Rullngs of the Apex Court but alse the procedure established under recruitment Rubs is followed. Hence challenging the select list, this application is Bled.
3. The applicant has sought the aforesaid relief, inter alle, on the rooming grounds; ~ &} I is ariirary and Mean! not ts seiect the applicant when she is Aly qualified and performed well in the written test as well as in the inberview and also opposed is Articles 14 and $6 of the Constitigian of India:
B:
b) The respondent did not follow the recrultmrent rule while selecting the
4 GA TROON S candidates:
€} Yhe selection committer, comynitied Fraguiarity In selecting (§ candidates instead of & posts as announced in the advertisament dated 05.07.9013
4. The applicant has refled upon the fellowing decision in suoport of her contention t= 4} Tn the case of Hoshiar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others dated 28.08.1993 reported in AIR 1993 (3) SCALE 572 §. The respondants Nave Aled a detailed reply statement denving ai! the avermants made In the G.A, it is submitted that the annlicant had applied for s rast of Hospital Work Assistant/A against Advertisement No. GSO/2/2013 on 14.09.2014. Vhe relevant extract of Advertisement is reproduced below for the ready reference:
| "Selection will be based on the overall grading of the candidate based on the following:
8} Marke obtained in the WAN examination:
by) Interview: | ec) Experience ih relevant field:
qd} Service in Armed Forces, if any;
Written lest was conducted for the post for 1100 candidates. Same day written test result was declared for 162 qualified candidates Including the applicant, interviews were held during the period 15.09.2014 te 19.09 2014 and the applicant attended the interview on 18.09.2014, Result was declared on 26.09 2034. Taking into account the marks obtained in the Written Test and Inherview, the applicant was f rot found fit for saiection. [€ is further submitted that the selection process to the post of Haspital Work Assistant was conducted Re very transparent and imparttal manner by following the requisite procedure scrupulous! yo The applicant hes failed to bring out any procestural inn eqisariiies oo fy Bos heat which sdiiated far ERS 'getion fo the mast af Soanilel Work Assistant. Therefore, there ig no substance if the cantan son of Soplcant is Chat she should HOF her experience in Suresh Hospital, Chennai, have bean selected sn BEE More sa, when as per the selection criteria, Sxpenenag was only one of Mes Fectars along with marks in weéten aramination and performance is Interaiaw s5 determing the overall grading, On 122.2016 Le. after a period Of UG months, the applicant fled the GA before the Thbunal for non-eelection. The rescandents pray for dismissal of the O.4, 6 Beard the Isarned counsel for the respective partes and perused the pleadings and documents on record, F. The issue for consideration In this OA is whether the selection committes, commiited irrequiarity in Incragse in the number of vacances frorn what WAS advertised, & The facts are not in discute. Undisputediy the respondents had conducted selection for 18 posts sasinst the natiiied vacances af & posts under the | category of Nospital Work AssistanYA. 182 candidates were quatified in written | test out of 1100 cantitates and were called for interview. The contention of the anmlicant is that she aught to have been selected on ancount of her status as reserved category candidate and her qualification as selection has been made for UR-10, OBC.8 and SC.2,
8. The entire selection process was carried out in termes of the advertisernent and al the procedures wars followed correctly aithin the Samework of ths Recruitment Norms for the post of Hospital Werk Assistant, Though the applicant was declared as qualified In the written test and as such eligible for thie next Stage of selection ius. interwew, but she did mat And place in the seiner dst prepared by Ue Selection Commities Sacer on the overall performance, The & SA TONG applicant Aas Aol ay able to establish any promedural irregularity in the selection process. [fis not the contention af the apalicant thet she suffered any ins, discrimination or injustios et any stage of the selection. Thus, h is dear that tie gootcant is Gggrieved by her norms election os the basie of fhe perceived inguahca- which cannot be congiderad asa praner causa te agargech ihe Tribunal seeking the rede! of setting aside of the entira select list and her anpointiyent as Hospital Work Assigtant. Yhas, bye red avs sougin: By the gantoent. era utustified end have no marits.
LO. The spplcant is acoraved on account of increase in. the suber of verancies as given in the Advertsernant from & fo 1S. Increase {A the rane of vacancy occurred on account of dacision to Include vacancies Srisen after issue of Advertisement. In the advertisement, f is stated thet fhe respondents reserves right to ff) uo the posts or alter the sunber of posts or even te cance the PReTUIEMANE OyOtess WIthoul sasiqning say ceasan, Surther ihe aophean' has failed to estaivish any prejudice or discrimination on account of Increase In the number of vacancies, aspecially when Increase in the number of vacancies invariably and correspondingly Increased the chances of selection for all the candidates incduding the agpficant, But even with the incrsase in sumber of posts, the applicant did not qualify to be empanelied on overall grading, On Perusal of Me recarda we find in the select Het Nat out of 1S cardidates got "Selected, there were five (5) SU cancinahes ii. Further, the applicant has flied this OA after a periad of 16 mmnths from the date of publication of the select fist lg, 26.93.2014. fb is & case of ailerthought siice the selection snd apooingnent of the saiected canditala were myarognd- et Ghis dusecture @ is set maintainable in view of the inaletion. The Selection Committee hag the absolute night to oblectively assees the credentials @ CMAAAASASE EES 2 OA USDIS : S ANS COME te Mey | Se far recomimenidahias Sse Res AS Par El Gueshon of nah. Tae inganGon or Che view of the appicant is that She paerfarrned well iA the written test and Inforview and should have been salerted has no na aning, The selection is dane on the baalia of the various parameter § prescribed fn {he selection mrocass, increase is the number of vacancies from what eae avant aed did Not in any WRY Cause ghy Injustice to the annfesnt snd there was no Riggadty fy increasing the number of vacancies.
iz. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in KA; Nagamanl vy, indian Airlines & others (2009) § SOC S18 has hei that an unsucresstial candidates after Saving icipated In a selection process, without any Geiur or protest, cad nok be permitted. later ar, fo question the process of selection, iS. The judgement retied upon by the anptcant is nat #onlicable to the prasent facts and circumetances of the cass, i8. In the conspeactus of discussion In the foragaing paraaranhs, we donot fed any merit in this O.4. If is areardingly dlemizeed, No costs. . re :
© lectin me ti nine ming mma arcs