Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Gaurav vs Council Of Scientific And Industrial ... on 3 April, 2024
OA 862 of 2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABD CIRCUIT BENCH AT NAINITAL
O.A. No. 862/2021
Reserved on: 23th May, 2023
Order on: 03th April, 2024
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. D.S. MAHRA, MEMBER [J]
HON'BLE MR. SHRI KRISHNA, MEMBER [A]
Gaurav (Aged: 30 years)
S/o Shri Janardan Ram
R/o G-164, HIG, Sector-11, Pratap Vihar,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh- 201009
.......... Applicant
By Advocate:
Mr. Aakid Ahmad
Versus
1. Council of Scientific & Industrial Research-Central
Building Research Institute, Roorkee, District
Haridwar 247667 through its Sr. COA.
2. Sr. Controller of Administration, Council of Scientific
& Industrial Research- Central Building Research
Institute, Roorkee, District Hardiwar- 247667.
3. Anup Kumar Prasad S/o Lakshman Prasad through Sr.
Controller of Administration, Council of Scientific &
Industrial Research- Central Building Research
Institute, Roorkee, District Haridwar- 247667.
.....Respondents
By Advocate:-
Ms. Anjali Bhargava
ORDER
D.S. MAHRA, M [J]
1. The respondent CSIR-CBRI advertised various posts OA 862 of 2021 in its institution vide advertisement no. 02/2017 including two posts of Scientist (Architecture) out of which one post was reserved for Schedule Caste and one post was reserved for OBC in Item no. 7 of the said advertisement.
2. The applicant applied for the said post, reserved for SC category. After the scrutiny, the preliminary test was conducted by the respondent and the applicant appeared for the interview. The respondents after the whole process issued a selection list in which applicant was not selected for the said post, however, respondent no. 3 was selected for the post of Scientist (Architecture).
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the applicant was more meritorious, having more marks in the preliminary test and he was eligible for the appointment but the respondents OA 862 of 2021 have selected the respondent no.3 without considering the merit and candidature of the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the preliminary test was only for the purpose of scrutiny and the screening committee was for short listing all the candidates for final interview, as such the respondent was entitled to adopt its own procedure for the selection.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant as well as respondent no. 3 was interviewed by the selection committee and after the final interview, the respondent no. 3 was selected and was appointed for the said post.
6. Heard learned counsel for parties.
7. The respondent issued an advertisement notice no.
OA 862 of 2021 2/2017 by which various posts were advertised. Item no. 7 of the said advertisement pertains to Scientist (Architecture) whereby two posts were advertised and one post was reserved for SC and one post was reserved for OBC category. The applicant applied for the same, who belongs to SC category, after submission of the said application, he was called for preliminary test which was for the short listing of the candidates. The applicant along with other candidates qualified the said test and was officially called for interview. In the final interview, the screening committee selected the respondent no. 3 and rejected the claim of the applicant vide official impugned select list dated 26-09-2021. The applicant as such has challenged the select list vide the present O.A.
8. The respondents while issuing the advertisement OA 862 of 2021 notice, condition no. 2C clearly mentioned as follows:
"The prescribed essential qualifications are the minimum and the mere possession of the same does not entitle candidates to be called for interview. The duly constituted Screening Committee will adopt its own criteria for short-listing the candidates. Selection will be made strictly according to Merit. The candidate should therefore, mention in the application all the qualifications and experiences in the relevant area over and above the mini mum prescribed qualification, supported with document. Completion of Ph.D degree will be reckoned from the date of issue of Provisional Certificate/Notification."
9. The CSIR Scientist Recruitment and Assessment Promotion Rules 2001, Para 6.5.2 provides as follows:
"For recruitment of Scientist upto Scientist Group IV(5) level the Director in the laboratories and in the case of CSIR Hqrs.DG, CSIR shall constitute the Screening Committee. For Scientist Group IV(6), the Screening Committee shall be OA 862 of 2021 constituted by DG, CSIR. The Committee shall screen the applications received and organize a written test or seminar, if considered necessary, for shortlisting the candidates to be called for interview. The set of applications and recommendations of the Screening Committee shall be sent to the Board. Approval of relaxation in age, qualifications and/or experience from DG, CSIR shall be obtained by the laboratory and sent to the Board."
10. From bare reading of the above two provisions, it is clear that the Screening Committee is competent to adopt its own criteria for shortlisting of the candidates and to make the final selection as per the criteria adopted by the committee.
11. The preliminary test conducted by the Screening Committee was only to shortlist the candidates who will finally appear in the interview. It is nowhere provided in the scheme of examination that the marks obtained by the candidates in the preliminary test shall be added to marks, obtained OA 862 of 2021 by the candidates in the interview.
12. Both are the independent procedures to be adopted by the screening committee. The preliminary step is to shortlist the large number of candidates and call them for interview. As both are independent procedures to be conducted by the Screening committee and the final selection is to be made only on the basis of the interview only. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that the marks obtained by the candidate in the shortlisting test has to be included/counted with the marks obtained in the interview, is without any basis and hence rejected.
13. The respondent no. 3 was selected finally on the selection basis of the interview conducted by the Screening Committee and the selection committee recommended a final list of candidates in order of OA 862 of 2021 its merits for the said post of Scientist (Architecture) and was forwarded to the appointing authority. The final selection list dated 26-09-2021 was issued and finally respondent no. 3 was selected and was appointed for the said post.
14. The claim of the applicant for the post of Scientist (Architecture) is negated by the selection committee as such respondent no. 3 was selected since he was having more marks in the interview and was officially appointed.
15. In view of the above, the claim of the applicant for post of Scientist (Architecture) is rejected as such O.A./862/2021 is liable to be dismissed.
16. No order as to costs.
SHRI KRISHNA D.S. MAHRA
Member(A) Member(J)
/AP/