Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Shalini Singh Aged About 28 Years ... vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 18 April, 2017
Open Court
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH , ALLAHABAD
Original Application No. 330/00415/2017
This the 18th day of April, 2017
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH GUPTA, MEMBER (J)
Shalini Singh aged about 28 years daughter of Raghubans Kumar Singh, resident of Babua Ka Pokhara, Turkapur (Rural), Post Office- Sadar District- Mirzapur (U.P.
Applicant
By Advocate:- Sri V.N. Pandey
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Human Resources Department, Ministry, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Chairman, Management Committee, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Kashi Hindu Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi.
3. Commissioner , through its Private Secretary, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Ministry of HRD, Dept. of Education, Govt. of India), 18 Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016.
4. Joint Commissioner (Saikshik) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Ministry of HRD, Dept. of Education, Govt. of India), 18 Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016.
5. Deputy Commissioner (D.C. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, BHU Campus) Varanasi.
6. Poonam Singh (Principal) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, BHU Campus) Varanasi.
7. Dipannita Das Sharma, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, BHU Campus) Varanasi.
Respondents
By Advocate: Sri D.P. Singh
ORDER
By Honble Mr. Dinesh Gupta, Member (J) This O.A. is preferred by the applicant u/s 19 of the AT Act with the following reliefs:-
i) to quash the entire proceedings conducted by the respondent No. 2 & 6 dated 28.3.2017 pursuant to the advertisement /publication dated 22.3.2017 by respondent No. 6 and all its constitutional proceedings/ follow up actions including issuance of selection list dated 28.3.2017 under seal and signature of respondent No . 2 and 6 with regard to appointment of contractual sociology teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya BHU Campus, Varanasi.
ii) to renew /extend/ continue the tenure of applicant regarding appointment taken place for session 2016-17.
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the counsel for the applicant is that an advertisement was published on 11.03.2016 in daily Hindi news paper on behalf of Kendriya Vidyalaya B.H.U. Campus Varanasi inviting suitable candidates to appear directly for Walk-in-interview on their own cost for various posts of teachers, coaches, counselor etc. purely on part time contractual basis for the session 2016-17 to draw a panel, along with their original certificate/testimonials and one set of attested Photo copy of their certificate/testimonials.
2.1 Applicant obtained her Master of Arts degree from V.B.S. Purvanchal University, Jaunpur in 2010, and completed her B.Ed. (Regular) course in 2015 which were the essential qualification for the requisite posts.
2.2 Applicant submitted her candidature form and participated in the interview before high level committee constituted to take Interview and select suitable candidate for the relevant subject/area and in pursuance of that applicant was selected as contractual teacher for taking classes in Senior Secondary and Secondary Section (PGT-Sociology) Kendriya Vidyalaya B.H.U. Campus Varanasi.
2.3 Applicant very efficiently and sensibly done her teaching work and completed her session 2016-17 peacefully without any complaint against her by any superior authority.
2.4 Applicant suffers from loco motor disability and regarding this Chief Medical Officer Mirzapur has issued Certificate to the applicant.
2.5 Applicants father sen a letter dated 16.03.2017 to respondent No.2 expressing his desire that applicant is suffering from loco motor disability and her engagement to teach Sociology may be continued in coming academic session 2017-18 also and respondent No.2 taking into cognizance of same assured that applicants renewal will renewed in accordance with law.
2.6 Respondent No.6 published fresh advertisement dated 22.3.2017 inviting suitable candidates to appear directly for Walk-in-Interview on their own cost for various posts purely on part time contractual basis for the session 2017-18 to draw a panel, along with their original certificate/testimonials and one set of attested photo copy of their certificate/testimonials.
2.7 Applicant competed the interview and submitted her certificate/testimonials afresh but applicants name was not considered without any valid reason and applicants name was not considered without any Sociology teacher in the published impugned selection list dated 28.03.2017 without considering the candidature of the applicant, it is material to state that respondents completed the selection process in hurry within a period of only six days.
2.8 It is material to state that in the impugned selection list for academic session 2017-18 mostly teachers wards and their kith & kin as well as close relations of clerical staff were appointed which is wholly illegal, arbitrary and against the law.
2.9 In the published selection list the tenure of the mostly teachers appointed in academic session 2016-17 has been renewed in the academic session 2017-18 also but without any cogent reason applicants renewal was not granted.
2.10 Applicant sent her representation dated 02.04.2017 to Principal Kendriya Vidyalaya/respondent No.6 for her consideration as teacher in Sociology stating all reasoned facts, but no reply has been given to the applicant.
2.11 Applicant is suffering from loco motor disability and well qualified for the post of sociology and possess eligibility criteria for the same but denial of the same is against the natural justice and is also material to state that section 33 of The Persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and full Participations) Act 1995 clearly state that in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three percent may be reserved for persons or class of persons with disability but same has not been followed by the appointing authorities which clearly violates the mandate of the act, as such applicant is fully eligible and deserve to be continued as teacher for taking classes in Senior Secondary and Secondary Section (PGT-Sociology) in Kendriya Vidyalaya B.H.U. Campus Varanasi.
2.12 When the respondents failed to consider the representation made by the applicant, the applicant compel to file the present Original Application.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant Sri V.N. Pandey and learned counsel for respondents Sri D.P. Singh at the admission stage.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the facts as stated in the O.A. and further submitted that there is no reservation for handicapped people proposed in the advertisement. Counsel for applicant further submitted that applicant was earlier working in the same organization without any complaint, as such her contract should be renewed. Counsel lastly submitted that respondents have hastily completed the selection process within six days and there is no transparency in the said selection process.
5. Counsel for respondents submitted that as per own admission of the applicant, she was earlier taken on contract basis for one year and next year again a notification was published and she herself submitted an application form and also participated in the interview and thereafter select list for selected candidates was published and in the Sociology Department (where the applicant has participated in the interview) name of five persons were shown in order of their suitability and the person who was given contract for one year was in fact, M.A. B.Ed, M.Phil while the applicant name did not find place in other four persons in order of suitability. Hence the applicant has no case and as such, the O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
6. Admittedly, on the previous occasion, the applicant applied for contract for one year and was given the contract. Even on previous time, no reservation for handicapped people was there and she was not appointed under the said physical disability quota. In the next year again, a fresh advertisement was issued and applicant applied for the same and participated in the interview and after due interview and selection process, respondents published the name of suitable candidates in order of their suitability in which the name of applicant did not find place. The applicant has failed to demonstrate before the bench that there is any malafide or irregularity in the selection process. It is not out of place to mention that respondents have a direction to take up the person on contract for a short term and in the light of the said direction, they have duly published a notification for walk-in-interview and after completion of interview and selection process, they appointed the suitable candidate on contract. As such, there is no irregularity or illegality in the said selection process. From the list, it is clear that respondents have selected the person who is having better qualification than the applicant. As such, O.A. lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Justice Dinesh Gupta) Member (J) HLS/-
1