Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Gurdeep Singh Son Of S. Ajit Singh vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 11 March, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH Order reserved on: 01.03.2016 M.A. No. 060/01238/2014 & 060/01239/2014 in ORIGINAL APPLICATION N0. 1570/PB/2013 Chandigarh, this the 11th day of March, 2016 CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER (J) & HONBLE SMT. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A) Gurdeep Singh son of S. Ajit Singh, resident of village Rampur Sainian, Tehsil Dera Bassi, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali. .APPLICANT BY ADVOCATE: SHRI R.K. HANDA VERSUS 1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 6th and 9th Floor, Chanderlok Building, # 36, Janpath, New Delhi. 2. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh through its Director. 3. The Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh. 4. The Administrative Officer (Recruitment Cell), Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh. 5. Varinder Dhiman son of Shri Jaspal Singh, resident of # 125, Village Khudda Jassu, Union Territory, Chandigarh. RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: SHRI AMIT JHANJI. ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER(J):-
This is 3rd round of litigation initiated by applicant Gurdeep Singh. Claim of the applicant relates to post of Boiler-Man Grade-II in PGIMER, Chandigarh- respondent no. 2. Pursuant to advertisement dated 02.06.2012 (Annexure A-1), the applicant Gurdeep Singh, private respondent no. 5 Varinder Dhiman and others applied for the two posts of Boiler-Man Grade-II. They appeared for the written test. The applicant, respondent no. 5 and three other candidates were declared successful. On the basis of documents submitted by the candidates, one candidate from general/unreserved category was found not eligible and the remaining four candidates including the applicant and respondent no. 5 were found eligible/ provisionally eligible. The applicant was found eligible and other three candidates including respondent no. 5 were found provisionally eligible. They were called for interview. They submitted their documents. Case of the applicant is that respondent no. 5 was ineligible as he could not have requisite experience of three years after his 2nd class certificate of competency issued on 26.05.2010 only. The applicant had the requisite experience after issuance of the said certificate in his favour in the year 2005. However, respondents vide notice dated 13.03.2013 (Annexure A-8) selected respondent no. 5 for the post of Boiler- Man Grade-II in general category although he was ineligible for the post. The applicant possesses the requisite qualification and was more meritorious and was the only eligible candidate and, therefore, he deserved to be selected. The applicant filed O.A. NO. 609/PB/2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 25.09.2013 (Annexure A-10) with liberty to the applicant to submit a representation to the competent authority (respondent no. 2) within a period of one week and respondent no. 2 was directed to consider the same and pass necessary orders within one month from the receipt of representation. Accordingly, the applicant submitted representation dated 26.09.2013 (Annexure A-11). However, he appears to have submitted another representation dated 07.10.2013 which has been rejected vide letter dated 05.11.2013 (Annexure A-9). Thereupon, the applicant filed the instant O.A. No. 1570/PB/2013 for quashing order dated 05.11.2013 (Annexure A-9) rejecting representation of the applicant and for quashing subsequent orders giving appointment to respondent no. 5 on the post of Boiler-Man Grade-II and sought direction for appointment of the applicant on the said post. It may be mentioned that respondent no. 5 resigned from the aforesaid post on 20.09.2013 i.e. during the pendency of the previous O.A.
2. Instant O.A. NO. 1570/PB/2013 was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 02.05.2014. The applicant filed CWP No. 11837/2014 challenging the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. The said Writ Petition has been disposed of in limine (without issuing notice to the respondents) by Honble High Court vide order dated 04.09.2014 with liberty to the applicant/petitioner to approach the Tribunal either by filing M.A. and or by way of fresh O.A. to seek relaxation in age to enable him to compete for the re-advertised post of Boiler-Man Grade-II. The applicant was also given liberty to seek interim relief before the Tribunal.
3. Pursuant to aforesaid order of the High Court the applicant has filed M.A. No. 060/01239/2014 seeking relaxation in age for enabling him to compete for the re-advertised post. The applicant has also filed M.A. NO. 060/01238/2014 seeking interim stay of selection to the said post.
4. The applications have been opposed by the respondents by filing reply.
5. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
6. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned that on resignation submitted by respondent no. 5 the post has been re-advertised by the respondents. The applicant has become over age to compete for the said post on re-advertisement although he was eligible for the post when initially advertised vide advertisement dated 02.06.2012 (Annexure A-1).
7. Counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that Honble High Court in order dated 04.09.2014 has observed that selection of respondent no. 5 for the said post pursuant to advertisement Annexure A-1 was per se illegal. On its basis, it was contended that the applicant is entitled to relaxation in age for re-advertised post because he was within age limit as per original advertisement Annexure A-1. It was emphasized that respondent no. 5 was not eligible for the post, but he was illegally selected and he had to resign and therefore the same post having been re-advertised, the applicant is entitled to relaxation in age for the re-advertised post. Counsel for the applicant also contended that the applicant being the only eligible candidate should have been selected pursuant to advertisement Annexure A-1 and, therefore, now he deserves age relaxation for re-advertised post.
8. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents contended that respondent no. 5 had resigned during the pendency of the first O.A. which was disposed of vide order dated 25.09.2013 (Annexure A-10). However, in the instant O.A., the applicant did not make any claim for age relaxation. It was pointed out that 2nd advertisement was issued on 04.03.2014 i.e. during the pendency of the instant O.A. which was dismissed on 02.05.2014. However, the applicant neither amended the O.A. nor filed any M.A. during the pendency of the O.A. to claim age relaxation for the re-advertised post. It was pointed out that as per re-advertisement, written test was held and result thereof was declared on 28.08.2014 (Annexure A-15) i.e. before order dated 04.09.2014 of the Honble High Court in the Writ Petition filed by the applicant, but the applicant did not disclose the said factum before the Honble High Court. It was also submitted that the applicant was not successful in the selection process pursuant to advertisement Annexure A-1 as mentioned in the order dated 05.11.2013 (Annexure A-9) and, therefore, he was not even kept on the waiting list and consequently the applicant is not entitled to age relaxation for the re-advertised post.
9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. Emphasis on behalf of the applicant on illegal selection of respondent no. 5 is misplaced because the applicant himself was not selected pursuant to advertisement Annexure-1, as per order Annexure A-9. Therefore, even if respondent no. 5 had not been selected, even then the applicant would not have been entitled to be selected/appointed because he was not in the list of successful candidates and, therefore, he was not even kept on waiting list as mentioned in order Annexure A-9 dated 05.11.2013. The Honble High Court in its order dated 04.09.2014 has also observed that To the extent the Tribunal has declined the petitioners claim for appointment, we are of the considered view that the Tribunals order does not call for any interference. In the absence of selection and placement in the merit list, no indefeasible right to secure appointment accrued in favour of the petitioner. It is thus evident that pursuant to advertisement Annexure A-1, the applicant was not successful and had no right to secure appointment. The rejection of his claim for appointment pursuant to advertisement Annexure A-1 has attained finality. Consequently, for re-advertised post, the applicant cannot claim age relaxation merely because he was earlier eligible at the time of advertisement Annexure A-1 or merely because respondent no. 5 was illegally selected pursuant to advertisement Annexure A-1. At the cost of repetition, it is highlighted that the applicant was not successful in the selection process pursuant to advertisement Annexure A-1 and, therefore, even ignoring the illegal selection of respondent no. 5, the applicant got no right to seek age relaxation for the re-advertised post. The applicant competed for the post pursuant to advertisement Annexure A-1 when he was eligible, but remained unsuccessful. Consequently, if by the time of re-advertisement, the applicant has become over age and, therefore, ineligible for the post, he cannot claim age relaxation.
10. It is also worth mentioning that written test pursuant to re-advertisement of the post has already been held and even result thereof has been declared on 28.08.2014 (Annexure A-15). The applicant did not bring this fact to the notice of the Honble High Court during the hearing of the Writ Petition on 04.09.2014. If it had been done, the Honble High Court possibly would not have granted liberty to the applicant to file instant M.As. Be that as it may, the fact remains that pursuant to re-advertisement dated 04.03.2014, written test has already been held and even result thereof has been declared. Consequently, at this belated stage, for this added reason also, the applicant cannot be granted any age relaxation for participating in the said selection process. We hasten to add that even otherwise, the applicant is not entitled to age relaxation.
11. It may be added that 2nd advertisement dated 04.03.2014 had come to the notice of the applicant during the pendency of the O.A. He had also filed M.A. No. 060/00440/2014 dated 31.03.2014 for stay of the said advertisement. However, no interim stay was granted in the O.A. The applicant did not challenge the said advertisement nor claimed age relaxation for the re-advertised post either by amending the instant O.A. or by filing fresh O.A. For this reason also, the applicant is not entitled to age relaxation.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the claim of the applicant for age relaxation for the re-advertised post. Accordingly, M.A. No. 060/01239/2014 is dismissed. M.A. No. 060/01238/2014 for interim stay consequently stands dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated.
(JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL) MEMBER (J) (RAJWANT SANDHU) MEMBER (A) Dated: 11.03.2016 `SK 9 (M.A. No. 060/01238/2014 & M.A. NO. 060/01239/2014 in O.A. No. 1570/PB/2013 )