Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Anit Kumar vs Council Of Scientific & Industrial ... on 28 March, 2025
1 O.A. No. 051/00457/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH,
RANCHI
O.A. No. 051/00457/2022
Reserved on: 24.03.2025
Pronouncement on: 28.03.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE MR KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER [A]
HON'BLE MR RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, MEMBER [J]
Anit Kumar, aged about 41 years, S/o Late Ram Chandra Singh, Resident
of SK 4-63 Sindri, P.O. & P.S. Sindri, District - Dhanbad, (Jharkhand),
828122.
.......Applicant.
-VERSUS-
1. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Science and
Technology, Government of India, At Technology Bhawan, New
Mehrauli Road, P.O. & P.S. - Mehrauli, New Delhi-110016.
2. The Director, CSIR-CIMFR, a constituent institute of Council of Scientific
and Industral Research, Under the aegis of Ministry of Science and
Technology, Government of India. At Barwa Road, P.Ο. Dhanbad, P.S. -
Barwadda, District - Dhanbad (Jharkahnd) 826015
3. The Administrative Officer, Recruitment Section, CSIR-CIMFR, a
constituent institute of Council of Scientific and Industral Research,
Under the aegis of Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of
India. At Barwa Road, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad
(Jharkahnd) 826015
........Respondents.
For Applicant:- Shri Rajiv Kumar Karn, Advocate
For Respondents:- Shri P.K. Pandey, Addl. CGSC
ORDER
As Per:- Rajveer Singh Verma, Member[Judicial]
1. The present OA has been filed by the applicant to challenge office memorandum no. 8/3474/2018-Estt.I/246 dt. 04.07.2019 issued by CSIR- CIMFR Dhanbad by which the services of the applicant was terminated with immediate effect and the applicant prays for following reliefs:-
"For setting aside/quashing the memorandum issued by Respondent No. 3 vide no. 8/3474/2018-Est-I/246 dated 04.07.2019 whereby the appointment of the applicant has been terminated on the ground that he does not meet the essential eligibility criteria for the post of security officer." 2 O.A. No. 051/00457/2022
BRIEF CASE
2. The applicant is an ex-serviceman, retired on 31.07.2014, from the Indian Navy as a Petty Officer with a Pay Band of Rs. 11,050/-. The applicant qualifies under Rule 6 of the Ex-Serviceman (Re-employment in the Central Civil Services and Posts), which allows appointment to the post if the essential educational qualifications and experience are met.
3. The CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR) advertised a post of Security Officer (Post Code: SECTO) through advertisement No. CIMFR-02/2017, inviting applications for an unreserved post in Pay Matrix Level 7, Grade Pay Rs. 4600/-. The required qualification for the post included Ex-Serviceman Short Service Commissioned Officers, JCO (Subedar or higher), or equivalent in para- military forces with at least 5-10 years of security experience. The applicant met these qualifications and applied accordingly, submitting necessary documents, including certificates from the Indian Navy verifying successful completion of the Marine Commando Course and Naval Trade Certificate equivalent to NCO Code-5169.1. The applicant was shortlisted for an interview held on 17.12.2017, and his name appeared in both the selected and waitlisted candidates' lists, as per the notification dated 18.12.2017.
4. The Selection Committee of CSIR-CIMFR recommended the applicant for the post, and an appointment letter was issued on 21.12.2017, which the applicant accepted by reporting for duty on 09.01.2018.
3 O.A. No. 051/00457/2022
5. The appointment included a one-year probation period. The applicant worked for approximately 18 months, from 09.01.2018 to 04.07.2019, without receiving any notice about the completion of his probation. Despite serving beyond the probation period, the applicant was terminated on 04.07.2019 through an office memorandum stating that the applicant did not meet the essential eligibility criteria for the Security Officer position.
6. The applicant raised a representation on 20.07.2019 to the Administrative Officer of CSIR-CIMFR, objecting to the termination, stating the memorandum was illegal and arbitrary. The applicant filed a writ petition (WP(S) No. 4488 of 2019) before the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand seeking quashing of the termination order. The petition was dismissed on 21.09.2020, but the applicant was allowed to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna, Circuit Bench, Ranchi.
7. That the termination order was issued without a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing, violating principles of natural justice. He contends that he submitted all necessary documents when applying, and the responsibility for verifying eligibility lies with the respondent authority before or during the probation period. Hence, this OA.
8. Respondents have filed the written statement and contested the OA on following grounds:
I. As per Clause-3 of the Offer of Appointment (No. 1(58)/Sec.
Officer/2017/RU/5345, dated 21.12.2017), the applicant was on probation for one year from the date of taking charge. The 4 O.A. No. 051/00457/2022 probation period could be extended or curtailed at the discretion of the competent authority. Upon successful completion of probation, the applicant was to be considered for confirmation in the same post, in line with DoPT OM no. 28020/3/2018-Estt (C), dated 11.03.2019. However, the probation could not be considered complete as the applicant had not completed the period of two years as per Clause 27 of DoPT OM no. 28020/3/2018-Estt (C), dated 11.03.2019.
II. As per Termination O.M. no. 8/3474/2018-Est/246, dated 04.07.2019, the applicant held the post of "Petty Officer"
(equivalent to Havildar) and did not qualify as a JCO, thus failing to meet the eligibility criteria for the Security Officer post and the termination of the applicant was in line with Termination O.M. no. 8/3474/2018-Est/246, dated 04.07.2019, issued as per CSIR HQ's order dated 13.12.2018 (letter no. 17-01(05)/02/2018/HR-III/CHS). III. The applicant's probation period was not completed according to Clause 27 of DoPT OM no. 28020/3/2018-Estt (C), dated 11.03.2019.
IV. The Director, CSIR-CIMFR, terminated the applicant's services in accordance with the instructions of the Government of India (DoPT OM no. 11012/7/91-Estt(A), dated 19.05.1993) and CSIR letter dated 13.12.2018.
V. The applicant, based on a certificate issued by the Indian Navy (No. 17715), was shortlisted for the interview for the post of Security Officer (CIMFR-02/2017). During document verification at the interview, it was revealed that the applicant lacked the necessary 5 O.A. No. 051/00457/2022 qualifications for the post. The applicant requested permission to attend the interview based on the equivalency of his naval trade certificate. The competent authority allowed this request. The applicant was selected by the Selection Committee based on his interview performance, and the offer of appointment was issued on 21.12.2017.
VI. The applicant was terminated from service based on Clause 4(1) & 4(iv) of the offer of appointment dated 21.12.2017, for not meeting the essential eligibility criteria for the Security Officer post.
7. We have heard arguments of the Ld. counsels for applicant and respondents. The Ld. counsel for applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anmol Kumar Tiwary and Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2021) 5 SCC 424. After careful consideration of the said judgment, we feel that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court may render no help to the applicant as the facts of the case cited above are entirely different to the facts inter alia involved in the present matter.
8. The post of Security Officer under unreserved category was advertised vide advertisement no. CIMFR-02/2017 with the following essential qualification and desirable qualifications.
Post code Name of the Post Essential Desirable No of
Qualifications Posts
Pay Scale: Revised Pay Matrix Level 7 plus allowances as per Central Govt. rules made, applicable to CSIR Employee (pre-revised (89300-34800;PB-2, Grade Pay 4600/-) Age Limit: Not more than 35 years as on 26th of September, 2017.
SECOF Security Officer Ex-Servicemen Short Graduation with 01 (One)
Service good verbal &
Unreserved
Commissioned Officer written
or Assistant communication skill
Commandant from with knowledge of
CRPF/BSF/ITBP, etc. computers and
in the scale of 8000- modern fire fighting,
6 O.A. No. 051/00457/2022
13,500 (Pre-revised) security monitoring
with 05 years systems etc.
experience OR
JCO (Subedar or
higher rank) or
equivalent rank in
other para- military
forces with minimum
of 10 years experience
in Security.
9. In the instant case, an advertisement No. CIMFR-02/2017 was issued for appointment of Security Officer in CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad. The essential qualification to the said post are mentioned at para 8 above. The applicant Sh. Anil Kumar was holding post of Petty Officer in the Indian Navy and applied to the post.
10. The post of Petty Officer in Indian Navy is not JCO rank post and therefore, he was not having essential qualification required for selection to the post of Security Officer in CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad.
11. Para 4 of the appointment letter dt. 21st December 2017 issued to the applicant stipulates as under:-
"4. Your service may be terminated on any of the following eventualities :-
(i) During the period of probation, your services may be terminated on one month notice, from either side in accordance with Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 without assigning any reason,
(ii) xxx
(iii) xxx
iv) If at any later stage, verification of Essential Qualification Certificate as per our Advertisement and any other certificate submitted by you reveals that the claim with regard to your candidature is false, the appointment will be terminated forthwith without assigning any further reason and without prejudice to such further action as may be taken under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code for production of false certificate/claim."
12. Applicant has not completed his probation period as per instructions mentioned in the DoPT's OM No. 28020/3/2018-Estt. (c) dt. 11.03.2017.
7 O.A. No. 051/00457/2022
13. DoPT's has issued OM No. 11012/7/91-Estt. (A) dt. 19.05.1993 on the subject: Action against Government servants to be taken if they are later found ineligible or unqualified for their initial recruitment. It is mentioned in this DoPT's OM that "......wherever it is found that a Government servant, who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the recruitment rules etc., for initial recruitment or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment, he should not be retained in service, if he is a probationer or a temporary Govt. servant, he should be discharged or his services should be terminated.......".
14. It is relevant to mentioned that the said DoPT's OM dt. 19.05.1993 was issued in pursuance to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the District Collector, Vizianagram Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [1990 (4) SLR 237] wherein the Hon'ble Court held as under:
"It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice."
15. From the above analysis the balance of convenience is not in the favour of the applicant. The contentions of the applicant are not agreeable and deserve to be rejected. Admittedly at the time of interview to the post of Security Officer in CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad the applicant was not having experience for holding the post of JCO (Subedar or higher rank) but having experience to hold post of Petty Officer in Indian Navy which 8 O.A. No. 051/00457/2022 is an inferior post to JCO. Thus he was not holding requisite essential qualification to the post of Security Officer as per the advertisement.
16. In view of above and condition stipulated in sub para (i) & (iv) of Para 4 of the appointment letter dt. 21.12.2017 read with DoPT's OM No. 11012/7/91-Estt. (A) dt. 19.05.1993, we found no apparent error in the impugned order dt. 04.07.2019 so issued by the CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad vide OM No. 8/3474/2018-Estt. -I/246.
17. In the result, the OA is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
18. There shall be no order as to cost.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Kumar Rajesh Chandra)
Member (J) Member (A)
du/-