Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Narmadha vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 13 March, 2024
1 OA 310/01203/2015 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH QOA/310/01203/2015 Dated Tuesday the 13" day of February Two Thousand Twenty Four CORAM: HON'BLE MR. MANISH GARG, Member (J) & HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A) S, Narmadha, D/o. G. Srinivasan, No. 9, Thula Singa Nagar, Arryankuppam, Puducherry-605 007 ... Applicant By Advocate M/s. Prakash Adiapadam Vs 1. Union of India Represented by the Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Puducherry Secretariat, Puducherry-605 001. 2. The Secretary to Government (Education), Government of Puducherry, Secretariat, Puducherry-605 001. 3. The Director, Directorate of School Education, Government of Puducherry, Directorate of School Education, Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Centenary Educational Complex, 100 Feet Road, Anna Nagar, Puducherry-605 005. . ... Respondents By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa i 2 OA 310/01203/2015 ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member(J)) In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:
« to direct the respondents to treat/consider the Application dated 20-04-2015 submitted by the Applicant in response to the Notification-2015 issued by the 3% respondent for the recruitment to post of Lecturer (Botany) in Government Higher Secondary Schools - 2015 against the OBC (Other Backward Classes) category also and pass such further or other orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant states that the recruitment process for the post of Lecturer was notified in the year 2015. The applicant applied under the OBC category, further categorised as MBC. He would draw attention to the OM, dated 17.10.2005, wherein, as per clause 9, reservation was extended in the ratio of 60:40. For the relevant purpose, the said Clause 9 is extracted hereunder: | "9 Having examined the recommendations of the State Level Commission for Backward Classes contained in their First Report, dated 24.4.2000, the Report VII, dated 27-9- 2001, Report XIV. Dated 6.2.2003, Report XIX dated 23-9-2003 (and Report XXV, dated 19-1-2005) and subsequent observations of the Commission, dated 10-12- 2003 reiterating their stand given in the report and taking into account the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Judgement, dated 16-11-1992, the Lieutenant-Governor, Pondicherry is pleased to order that as per the recommendations of the State Level Commission for Backward Classes, the reservation benefits in services to Group 'C' and 'D' posts shall henceforth be extended to the Most Backward Classes notified by the Union Territory of Pondicherry and shall be made applicable only in the regions of Pondicherry. Karaikal and Yanam adopting ratio of 60:40 between Most Backward Classes and other 3 OA 310/01203/2015 Backward Classes, respectively"
3. He would also rely upon the averment made in the counter affidavit, more specifically on para 5. For ready reference, the said para 5 is reproduced as under:
"5. The respondent respectfully submits that as per Recruitment Rules notified vide G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 07.01.2015, the post of Lecturer is classified as Group-B Non-Gazetted, for which reservation is applicable to OBC and SC categories only. Accordingly, out of the two vacancies notified in the discipline of Botany, one vacancy is earmarked for OBC category. The applicant who applied for the post of Lecturer in Botany in response to the said notification had declared in her application that she belongs to MBC category and produced a copy of the Community Certificate issued by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Puducherry on 19.07.2010 for Educational purpose in support of her claim. In para 7 of the Original Application the applicant has quoted G.O.Ms.47/2005-Wel (Sw- ID) dated 17.10.2005, wherein the application of the Government Order has been restricted to Group C and D posts. The post in question is a Group-B post. Therefore the Original Application has been filed on misconception and factual error and hence liable to be dismissed."
4. Having heard the counsel for the parties as well as relying upon the pleadings made available on record, it is not in dispute that the applicant belongs to the MBC category. At the relevant point of time, the said category was made available to C and D Group posts, as per the notification, dated 17.10.2005, already highlighted herein above.
5. The applicant's contention would be that the applicant has lost her future prospects of employment under the MBC category and was deprived of the ratio ~ 4 OA 310/01203/2015 as per the notification, dated 17.10.2005. She also draws attention to the notification, dated 15.03.2023, where the benefit of 60:40 reservation is fixed for MBC and Other Backward Classes, wherein similar benefit has been extended to Group B posts also for which the applicant had applied. The relevant para of the notification is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"The State Level Commission for Backward Classes, Puducherry in its 45" Report dated 22-12-2011, has unanimously recommended for extension of this Reservation benefits provided to Backward Classes also to Group 'B' posts in the Union Territory of Puducherry as many of Group 'C' posts have been classified as Group 'B' (Non-Gazetted) posts while implementing recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission in the Union Territory of Puducherry."
6. At this stage, the point of determination is whether the notification can be applied retrospectively qua the applicant. We observe that the notification qua the advertisement was way back in the year 2015, and the selection process is already over. By virtue of this factual scenario, we cannot extend the application of the notification, dated 15.03.2023, to Group B posts.
7. Be that as it may, in future, the applicant is always at liberty to apply in accordance with law, as per the rule position and notification. In view of the same, the present OA deserves to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. 'No order as to costs.