Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Ravikant Dipchand Supare vs Comptroller And Auditor-General Of ... on 9 October, 2017
1 OA No. 2076/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, NAGPUR
O.A.2076/2016
Dated this Friday the 09th day of October,
2017
Coram: Hon'ble Shri Arvind J.Rohee, Member (J).
Hon'ble Shri R. Vijaykumar, Member (A).
1. Ravikant S/o Dipchand Supare,
Aged 30 years.
Occ. Student. R/o Shivpanchayatnagar
Kamptee.
Tq. Kamptee,
District: Nagpur. ...Applicant.
( By Advocate Shri A. V. Bhide ).
Versus
1. Comptroller and Auditor
General of India, 9,
Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg,
New Delhi,
Pin code 110 124.
2. Accountant General (A&E)
II Maharashtra,
Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001. Respondents.
2 OA No. 2076/2016
( By Advocate Shri R.G.Agrawal )
Reserved on : 21.09.2017
Pronounced on : 09.10.2017
ORDER
Per : Shri A.J. Rohee, Member (J)
The applicant approached this Tribunal under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-
"8.1 Quash and set aside the order/notification issued by the respondents on 14.07.2015, thereby, canceling the process of Sports Quota recruitment 2014, conducted by the respondent No.2 in the month of March, 2015 which is at Annexure-1.
8.2 Directions be issued to the
respondents to appoint the
applicant as Accountant, on the
basis of the result of the
selection process conducted by
the respondent No.2, as per the
Annexure A-2.
3 OA No. 2076/2016
8.3 Any other relief, which deemed to be just and proper by this Tribunal, be granted to the applicant."
2. In pursuance of the advertisement/ notification dt. 20/26.12.2014 issued by the respondent No.2 inviting applications from the eligible candidates to fill up the post of Accountant in sports quota under Hockey and Football discipline. The applicant being eligible has applied for the said post. The applicant in pursuance of the call letter dt. 18.2.2015 participated in the selection process. He was shortlisted for Hockey discipline and he was interviewed for the said post on 14.3.2015. However, thereafter, he did 4 OA No. 2076/2016 not receive any communication from the respondents.
3. The applicant, therefore, took recourse to the provisions of R.T.I. However, it was of no avail.
Subsequently, on 14.7.2015, the respondent No.2 displayed a notification to the effect that the recruitment process in Hockey discipline under sports quota for 2014 was cancelled. No reason was given. Hence, the present O.A. has been filed seeking the above referred reliefs which are based on the following grounds as mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the O.A. The same are reproduced here for ready reference :-
"5.1 The aforesaid documents reflect that there was no 5 OA No. 2076/2016 transparency in the Matter if cancellation of the selection process for sports quota, only for the discipline of Hokey and not for the discipline of Football.
5.2 The respondents have not assigned any reason for the cancellation of the selection process in respect of Hokey discipline, after the selection process was over, and the applicant was duly selected at Sr. No.1 in the said selection process.
5.3 The respondents have committed a gross error in not informing anything about the cause of cancellation of the selection precess, only for Hokey discipline, and made a farce of showing the cause for the cancellation process. It is pertinent to note that the decision was kept secret, and only after the repeated applications under right to information act, the decision of cancellation of the selection process for Hokey Discipline was informed vide the impugned communication at Annexure-I. Thus it is evident that the impugned communication is bad in law, and 6 OA No. 2076/2016 the decision of the respondents no.1 and 2, as regards the arbitrary cancellation of the selection process for Hokey discipline is liable to be quashed and set aside.
5.4 The respondents have committed a gross error in
canceling only the part of the selection process in respect of Hokey discipline, and in appointing the candidates selected in the same selection process in the discipline of Football. If there was any flaw in the selection process, then the entire selection process was liable to be canceled. However, without assigning any reason, only the part of the selection process as regards Hokey discipline was canceled. The said action on the part of the respondents lack of transparency in the matter of illegal cancellation of part of the selection process.
5.5 The respondents ought to have seen that the rights of the applicant were adversely affected by the impugned communication and decision, as the applicant was already declared as selected candidate at Serial no.1 in the 7 OA No. 2076/2016 select list. Thus the impugned communication at Annexure A-1 and the decision of the respondents No.1 and 2 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is also necessary in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant as Accountant, as per the document, at Annexure-2.
5.6 When, as a result of the common selection process for Hokey and Football discipline, the candidates from football discipline where appointed to the post of Accountant, it was unjust and illegal to cancel only the part of selection process in respect of Hokey discipline."
4. On notice, the respondents appeared and by reply dt. 16.9.2016 resisted the O.A. in which all the adverse averments, contentions and grounds raised therein are denied. According to respondents, a policy decision was taken to cancel the recruitment process under 8 OA No. 2076/2016 Hockey discipline and to restrict it to Football only. The respondents have filed on record copy of the impugned notification dt. 14.7.2015. The copy of the order dt. 31.3.2016 passed by this Tribunal while admitting the O.A. and issued notice to the respondents in which the impugned order dt. 14.7.2015 is stayed and the said interim order was continued from time to time. The office letter dt. 20.11.2014 issued by the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India under the caption Recruitment of Meritorious Sports persons to Group `C' post of Auditor/Accountant for the year 2014 i.e. on the basis of which the advertisement was issued in December, 2014 9 OA No. 2076/2016 to fill up 4 posts of Auditor/Accountant Group `C' in the Office of the Accountant General (A&E) II Maharashtra, Nagpur, 3 under Hockey discipline and 1 under Football discipline in all 4 from Male candidates. The letter dt. 14.3.2015 issued by Deputy Accountant General (Administration) in the Office of the Accountant General (A&E) II Maharashtra, Nagpur is also produced which shows that 3 candidates were selected for the post of Accountant under sports quota (Hockey discipline) in which the applicant stands at Sl. No.1. However, it is stated that subsequently, policy decision was taken at Government level not to fill up the post under Hockey discipline. Hence, no relief 10 OA No. 2076/2016 could be granted in the present O.A., which is liable to be dismissed.
5. On 21.9.2017, when the matter was called out during the circuit bench sitting at Nagpur, we have heard Shri A.V.Bhide, learned Advocate for the applicant and the reply arguments of Shri R.G.Agrawal, learned Advocate for the respondents. We have carefully gone through the entire case record including pleadings of the parties and the documents relied upon by them in support of their contentions.
FINDINGS
6. The only point that arises for decision of this Tribunal is whether the impugned order dt. 14.7.2015 by which 11 OA No. 2076/2016 recruitment for the post of Accountant Group `C' under Hockey discipline is illegal, improper or incorrect and hence liable to be set aside.
7. During the course of arguments, the learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that having successfully gone through the entire recruitment process and placed at Sl.No.1 in the select list it was not open for the respondents to cancel the selection only because it pertains to Hockey discipline. He submitted that the respondents have indulged in giving discriminatory treatment to the applicant since the very recruitment process for Football discipline is not cancelled. However, there is nothing on record to 12 OA No. 2076/2016 show that out of 3 vacancies only one or two vacancies under Hockey discipline are filled up by the respondents or that incompetent/ ineligible candidates have been selected as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate for the respondents that a policy decision was taken at the high level to cancel the recruitment process and no relief can be granted to the applicant.
8. It may be mentioned here that recruitment process to fill up the posts under sports quota under Hockey discipline was by way of reservation in the said quota. It is, however, for the respondents to consider allotting the said quota to a particular discipline. It is also obvious 13 OA No. 2076/2016 that the candidate has a fundamental right to be considered on issuance of advertisement. However, he has no vested right of appointment even after the entire recruitment process is undertaken and completed and select list is prepared, still it will be for the respondents to cancell the selection process and to give appointment to selected candidates.
9. In the present case, the respondents in their wisdom took a policy decision not to fill up the said quota under Hockey discipline. There is nothing on record to show that they have allotted the said quota for any other discipline simply because the respondents have not cancelled the sports quota under Football 14 OA No. 2076/2016 discipline and cancelled the selection in the Hockey discipline. It cannot be said that it has resulted in causing any discrimination to the applicant. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the present O.A., so as to exercise the power of judicial review vested in this Tribunal and to set aside the impugned notification as illegal, arbitrary, improper or incorrect.
10. In the result, the O.A. stands dismissed. However, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
(R.VIJAYKUMAR) (A.J.ROHEE)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
B.
15 OA No. 2076/2016