Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sakshi Bhadoria vs Union Public Service Commission on 24 January, 2024
1
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O. A. No. 3523 of 2022
Reserved on: 20.12.2023
Pronounced on: 24.01.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Ms. Sakshi Bhadoria,
Aged about 37 years,
W/o Dr. Sunil Tomar,
R/o F-1, A-196,
Swami Vivekanand Enclave,
Shalimar Garden Main,
Ghaziabad, UP.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Aanchal Anand)
Versus
1. Secretary,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi - 110 003.
2. Secretary,
Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying,
Ministry of Fisheries,
Govt. of India,
Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi- 110 001.
3. Dr. Puneet Ranjan.
(To be served through respondent no.1/UPSC).
....Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. R.V Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh and
Mr. Amit Sinha for R-1.
2
OA No.3523 of 2022
Mr.Gyanendra Singh with Mr. Pradeep
Kumar Singh & Mr.S.K.Tripathi for R-
2.
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A):
Brief facts of the case, as enumerated by the applicant in the OA, are that pursuant to Vacancy Advertisement No.10/2019 published by the Union Public Service Commission [Respondent no.1] for filling up four vacancies of Livestock Officer in the Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying [Respondent no.2], the applicant participated in the interview conducted on 13th and 14th January, 2022. Consequent upon the said interview, respondents no.1 recommended four candidates for appointment to the post of Livestock Officer and the applicant's name was kept in the reserved/wait list at serial no.1.
1.1 Out of the four recommended candidates, one Dr. Lande Vinay Suresh declined to accept the offer of appointment, which was initially sent to him through official email dated 18.08.2022 and subsequently through Speed Post on 12.09.2022.
3OA No.3523 of 2022 1.2 Respondent no.1 issued another Advertisement No.10/20 for filling up three posts of Livestock Officer other than the posts already advertised vide Advertisement No.10/19. Since a subsequent notification cannot be issued for the same post before the currency of the reserved/wait list of the earlier selection is over, the applicant submitted a representation to respondent no.1 to consider her case for appointment being at serial no.1 on the reserved/wait list panel, but she was neither issued offer of appointment nor any reply given to her till date, despite availability of vacancies.
1.3 Aggrieved by the in-action of the respondents, the applicant filed the instant OA seeking the following relief:-
"(i) Direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Livestock Officer created by not accepting the offer of appointment by Dr. Lande Vinay Suresh as the applicant is at Sl. No.1 in the waiting lit;
(ii) Award the exemplary cost in favour of the applicant;
(iii) May also pass any further order(s), direction(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice."
2. Per contra, respondent no.1 has filed a counter affidavit and stated that the present case relates to filling up of 04-UR posts of Livestock Officer in Respondent No.2's department. Interviews for the same were held on 4 OA No.3523 of 2022 13th & 14th January, 2022 and the Interview Board Report [IBR) was finalized on 14.01.2022 by recommending four candidates vide letter dated 07.02.2022. 2.1 On the basis of a subsequent requisition for recruitment against 03 posts (UR-01, OBC-01 & SC-01) of Livestock Officer sent by respondent no.2, respondent no.1 issued Advertisement No.10/20. Interviews were held on 19th & 20th September, 2022 and IBR was finalized on 21.09.2022 by recommending 03 candidates vide letter dated 11.10.2022.
2.2 Respondent no.2, vide letter dated 21.09.2022 (received by respondent no.1 on 26.09.2022) informed respondent no.1 regarding cancellation of offer of appointment of one Dr. Lande Vinay Suresh for the post of Livestock Officer and requested to release the name of one candidate from the reserve/wait list vice Dr. Lande Vinay Suresh. Since subsequent selection for the said post had been done, no name could be released from the reserve list in terms of the Commission's decision contained in Circular No.17 dated 09.05.1996. The said information had been sent to respondent no.2 vide letter dated 04.11.2022. Hence, the applicant has no locus standi to seek appointment from the reserve/wait list panel. 5 OA No.3523 of 2022
3. Respondent no.2 has also filed its reply stating that the Commission nominated four candidates vide letter dated 07.02.2022, para 4 of the said letter, regarding the reserve panel, reads as under:-
"The Reserve Panel of 04 candidates has been kept in this case, which in normal circumstances is valid for a period of 2 years from the date of finalization of the Recommendations of the Commission. In case the selected candidate, after being given a reasonable time to join against the selected post, does not join, you may request the Commission for releasing of a name from the Reserve Panel after cancellation of the offer of appointment of the selected candidate. The Reserve Panel will become null and void on finalization of selection for filling up subsequent vacancies in the same grade."
3.1 After declining the offer of appointment by one Dr. Lande Vinay Suresh, his offer of appointment was cancelled and the same was forwarded to UPSC vide letter dated 21.09.2022 for nominating another candidate from the Reserve Panel. In response thereto, respondent no.1, vide letter dated 04.11.2022 informed that upon subsequent selection for the post of Livestock Officer (against second proposal sent in 2020 for filling three posts of Livestock Officer) and as per the guidelines in the Commission, no name can be released from the reserve panel if a subsequent selection for filling up subsequent vacancies in the same grade has already been held. Respondent no.2 was also advised to forward a fresh 6 OA No.3523 of 2022 requisition after reviewing the necessary reservation position, in case vacancies still exist, for making another attempt in this regard.
3.2 Contention of the applicant, who claims to be at serial no.1 of the reserve panel, is that she should be offered the post of Livestock Officer by operating the reserve panel of first selection (for 04 posts). Information about reserve panel had not been disclosed by the UPSC to respondent no.2. However, it is the policy of UPSC and they act as per their guidelines. Hence, respondent no.2 has no role to play on the recommendation/non- recommendation of name of any candidate for the post of Livestock Officer from the reserve panel.
4. Respondent no.3 (private respondent) has also filed a short reply to the O.A. reiterating the averments made by the Commission. He has stated that the instant OA is based on misconception of facts and law and, hence, deserves to be dismissed, being devoid of merit. 4.1 In support of their arguments, learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the following decisions:-
i) Union of India & Ors vs. Kali Dass Batish & Anr. [2006 (1) SCC 779];7 OA No.3523 of 2022
ii) Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2013 (12) SCC 243];
iii)Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [2016 (6) SCC 532];
iv)Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Surrender Kumar & Ors. [2019 (2) SCC 195];
v) Jatinder Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. [1985 (1) SCC 122];
vi)Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Suresh Prasad & Ors. [2004 (2) SCC 681];
vii) J.R. Raghupathy & Ors. vs. State of A.P. & Ors. [1988 (4) SCC 364];
viii) Ravinder Chauhan vs. UPSC & Anr.[2021 SCC OnLine Del 3403];
ix) Vallampati Sathish Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [2022 (!3) SCC 193];
x) Sudesh Kumar Goyal vs. The State of Haryana & Ors [Civil Appeal No.10861 of 2013 decided on 21.092023]; and
5. The applicant has filed a rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of respondent no.1 more or less reiterating the averments made in the OA. It has been stated that the department concedes and admits that the second proposal for appointment to the post of Livestock Officer was for additional posts and not for any of the four vacancies in the first round, which were advertised on 24.08.2019. While on one hand, the first round of vacancies had not been filled pursuant to the proposal and advertisement dated 24.08.2019, the department made another proposal 8 OA No.3523 of 2022 to UPSC on 24.06.2020 for filling up of 03 posts of Livestock Officer (in addition to the aforementioned four vacancies) and UPSC advertised the same on 12.09.2020 and kept the names of 09 candidates in the reserve panel for two years. Hence, 04 posts advertised in the first round and selection process for the same had no link or connection whatsoever with the subsequent advertisement for 03 more/additional posts issued on 24.06.2020. 5.1 The applicant contends that respondents are blowing hot and cold in one breath. On the one hand respondent no.2 requested respondent no.1 to release the name of one candidate from the reserve panel and on the other hand it is their stand that they were not aware about the reserve panel. Both these averments contradict each other.
5.2 In support of her arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:-
i) Manoj Manu & Anr. Vs. Union of India [Civil Appeal No.6707 of 2013 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.08.2013];
ii) Grishma Goyal vs. UPSC & Ors. [OA No.1308/2020 decided by CAT on 08.10.2020]; 9 OA No.3523 of 2022
iii) Union Public Service Commission vs. Grishma Goyal [WP(C) No.1231/2021 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 16.02.2021];
iv) R.S. Mittal vs. Union of India [1995 SCC, Suppl.(2) 230];
v) Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board vs. Lokesh Kumar & Ors. [WP(C) No.5236 of 2012 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 07.03.2013];
vi) Suresh Kumar Lalit Kumar Patel vs. The State of Gujarat [Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos. 5026-5027/2021 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 20.02.2023];
vii) Moola Ram vs. State of Rajasthan [RLW 2006 (1) Raj.492];
viii) State of A.P. & Ors vs. D. Dastagiri & Ors. [2003 (5) SCC 373] and
ix) Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. vs. South East Central Railway & Ors. etc. [Civil Appeal Nos. 11360-11363 of 2018 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.11.2018].
6. We have heard Ms. Aanchal Anand, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. R.V. Sinha, Gyanendra Singh and Mr. S.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respective respondents. We have also gone through the pleadings available on record as also the citations relied upon by learned counsel for both the parties.
7. Pursuant to the vacancy advertisement No.10/2019 published by the UPSC, the applicant was placed at Sl. No.1 on the reserve/wait list panel for the post of 10 OA No.3523 of 2022 Livestock Officer in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying.
8. It is not disputed that one of the four candidates recommended for appointment declined to accept the offer of appointment thereby causing one vacancy. In order to fill up that vacancy, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 21.09.2022, received by respondent No.1 on 26.09.2022, requested the latter to release the name of one candidate from the reserve/waitlist vice the aforementioned vacancy. Meanwhile, respondent No.1 had issued another advertisement No.10/2020 for filling up three posts of Livestock Officer other than the posts already advertised vide Advertisement No.10/2019.
9. The stand of the respondents, firstly, is that no indefeasible right had accrued to the applicant inasmuch as her name was on the reserve/waitlist. Moreover, the proposal of respondent No.2 had been received in the office of UPSC on 26.09.2022 before which i.e. on 21.09.2022, selection process for the second advertisement i.e. 10/2020 had already been completed with the finalization of Interview Board Report (IBR).
10. Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that as per the Commission's decision contained in 11 OA No.3523 of 2022 Circular No.17 (No.F.16/11(1)/94-R(C&P) dated 09.05.1996, the rules pertaining to recommendation of candidates from reserve list are contained in Para 17 which reads as under:-
"17. Recommendation of Candidates from Reserve List 17.1 According to the existing decision of the Commission already circulated vide circular No.17, (No.F.16/11(1)/94-R (C&P) dated 9th May, 1996) no names should be released from the Reserve List if a subsequent selection for filling up subsequent vacancies/post(s) in the same grade has already been held.
17.2 It has also been decided by the Commission that the Office note for release of name(s) from Reserve List should clearly indicate the fact of subsequent selection aspect for the same post(s)/vacancies in the same grade."
Since IBR for the second vacancy Notification had already been completed on 21.09.2022 and the proposal for operating the reserve list of the previous selection had been received later i.e. on 26.09.2022, hence, the UPSC was not required to operate the reserve list of the previous selection.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant had also drawn attention to DOP&T's Office Memorandum dated 13.06.2000 as per which it has been directed that wherever selection has been made through UPSC, a request for nomination from the reserve list, if any, may be made in the event of occurrence of a vacancy caused 12 OA No.3523 of 2022 by non joining of a candidate, if a fresh panel is not available by then. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the respondents to operate the reserve panel of the first selection instead of placing a fresh indent for the second selection without exhausting the reserve panel already available. The critical point is whether UPSC could have released a name from the reserve list of the first selection after an IBR of the second selection had been finalized.
12. We are of the considered opinion that although IBR for the second selection had been finalized on 21.09.2022, the select list was advised to the user department only on 11.10.2022 i.e. after a lapse of almost three weeks. Whereas UPSC may take IBR to mean completion of selection but for the public at large, the selection would be taken to be complete only after the select list has been issued. IBR is a term which may be internally used by the UPSC but is not a term or event in common parlance. A public recruitment can be treated to be complete only when the Select List has be published and put in public domain. What comes in the public domain is not IBR which is an internal event of UPSC's recruitment process, but the Select List, as and when 13 OA No.3523 of 2022 published/communicated by the recruiting agency to the user department.
13. In the conspectus of the peculiar facts of this case, we find that the citations quoted are not directly congruent to the facts of the instant matter. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that it is an undisputed fact that the request of the user department for releasing the reserve list of the first selection had been received by UPSC on 26.09.2022 whereas the IBR for the second round of selection had been finalized i.e. on 21.09.2022. However, in the second round of selection the Select List was sent to the user department only on 11.10.2022 and it was incumbent upon UPSC to first release the name from the reserve list of the first selection and then send the Select List for the second round of selection particularly because the vacancies advertised in the two selections were independent of each other. The user department had already sent the request for operating the reserve list and prudence demanded that they should have awaited the outcome of their own request before placing a fresh requisition. 14 OA No.3523 of 2022
14. We, therefore, order as under:-
(i) The UPSC is directed to release the name of the applicant borne on the reserve list of the first selection;
(ii) The applicant be offered appointment subject to her passing the prescribed medical examination or any other pre-condition prescribed by the respondents. It is made clear that the applicant be given notional benefit with effect from the date of appointment of the first candidate on the Select List for the second selection. The applicant would rank senior to that candidate as her name is borne on an earlier Select List.
15. The aforementioned exercise be completed within a span of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
16. The OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
17. No order as to costs.
(Anand Mathur) (Justice Ranjit More) Member (A) Chairman /vb/