Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Satendra Kumar Singh vs M/O Agriculture on 1 December, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No.2659/2015
New Delhi this the Ist day of December, 2016
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Dr. Satendra Kumar Singh,
Aged 55 years,
S/o Shri Ram Swarth Singh,
Principal Scientist (Animal Genetics
and Breeding),
Central Institute of Research on Goats,
Indian Council of Agriculture Research,
Department of Agriculture Research and
Education, Ministry of Agriculture,
Makhdoom, P.O.Farah,
Pin-281122,
District: Mathura,
Uttar Pradesh, India
Now residing at:
Qr.No. Type V/7,
Central Institute of Research on
Goats Campus, Makhdoom,
P.O. Farah, Pin-281122,
District: Mathura,
Uttar Pradesh. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.Prateek Tushar Mohanty)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture
Research and Education and
Director General,
Indian Council of Agriculture Research,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
2. Indian Council of Agriculture Research,
Through the President,
Department of Agriculture Research and
Education, Ministry of Agriculture,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
3. The Additional Secretary,
Department of Agriculture Research and
Education and the Secretary,
Indian Council of Agriculture Research,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
2 OA No.2659/2015
4. The Agricultural Scientists Recruitment
Board,
Through its Chairman,
Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan-1, PUSA,
New Delhi-110012. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Praveen Swarup )
O R D E R (ORAL)
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A):
The applicant belongs to Agricultural Research Services of the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (for short ICAR) and is presently working in the rank of Principal Scientist. In August, 2013, he responded to advertisement no. 02/2013 issued by Agricultural Scientist Recruitment Board (for short ASRB) for the post of Assistant Director General (Information and Communications Technology) (for short ADG (ICT) in ICAR. It is not disputed that the applicant was recommended by the Board for appointment to the aforesaid post, having successfully qualified the selection process. However, the applicant was denied appointment. He then filed OA No. 612/2015 before this Tribunal. This was disposed of on 13.02.2015 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representations of the applicant. In compliance of the orders of this Tribunal, the respondents have decided the representations of the applicant and have rejected the same vide impugned order dated 22.06.2015. The applicant has now approached this Tribunal assailing the rejection order.
2. In their reply, the respondents have submitted that it is true that the applicant was recommended for appointment to the post of ADG (ICT) by the Board. However, when the 3 OA No.2659/2015 recommendation of the Board was being processed it was felt that the incumbent of the post should ideally be equipped with a Master's Degree in IT/Computer Science. Since, the advertised qualifications for this post did not specify any essential qualifications in either IT or Computer Science, it was felt that the same were flawed. Therefore, the respondents felt that recommendations based on a flawed qualification would not ideally provide a selectee equipped to handle the job. Consequently, the ICAR vide letter No.4(26)/2012-Per-III dated 12.5.2014 informed ASRB that the selection made on the existing qualification would not provide a candidate capable of handling the job requirements. Requisition was sent with revised qualification with the approval of the Competent Authority. Accordingly, the post was re-advertised by the Board vide advertisement No.02/2014. The respondents have further stated that the applicant was making allegations not borne out from the record. The action of the respondents was in the interest of the organization and no malafide was involved in the same.
3. We have heard both sides and have perused the material on record.
4. The advertised qualification for the post as indicated by the applicant in para 4.29 of the OA was as follows:-
"182. Assistant Director General (Information & Communications Technology): (One post) Qualifications:
Essential: (1) Doctoral degree in any branch of Agricultural Science including relevant basic sciences.4 OA No.2659/2015
(ii) & (iii) As in item no. 178 above.
Desirable: Experience in implementation of Information & Communications Technology solutions in research management."
A mere reading of the same would reveal that the respondents had a valid reason to come to the conclusion that the qualifications advertised would not provide a candidate capable of handling the job requirements of the post. The post advertised was of ADG (ICT) whereas the qualification prescribed was a Doctoral degree in Agriculture Science. No qualification in IT or Computer Science was prescribed under the caption of essential qualification. Only under the head "desirable" experience in implementation of Information & Communications Technology solutions in research management was prescribed. Thus, in our opinion, the respondents were right in coming to the conclusion that a person having the aforesaid qualifications would not be capable of handling the responsibilities attached to the post of ADG (ICT). Consequently, we find ample justification in the actions of the respondents in not appointing anyone through the recruitment process in which the applicant had participated and re-advertising the post with different qualifications.
5. The applicant in support of his case has relied on several judgments of different Courts. One such set of judgments relied upon by him is as follows:-
(1) Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota V. M/s Shukla & Brothers,(2010) 4 SCC 785) (2) Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., AIR 1991 SC 537.5 OA No.2659/2015
(3) M.J.Sivani v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1995 SC 1770.
(4) Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad, (2012) 4 SCC 407.
The applicant has cited the aforesaid judgments to emphasize that every action of the State or an instrumentality of the State would amount to be arbitrary if reasons for taking that decision are not advanced. In this case, we are of the opinion that the respondents have given ample justifications for their decision. Hence, these judgments are of no use to the applicant.
6. Next he has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another (AIR 2008 SC 1470), wherein it has been held that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game was over. On going through the judgment, we find that the issue involved in this case was change in the Scheme of the examination inasmuch as after start of the selection process, the authorities had changed the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for written examination as well as interview. However in the instant case, we do not find that to be the situation. The respondents have not changed the rules of the game. They have just abandoned the process finding it to be flawed and no candidate has been appointed through this recruitment. As such, this judgment also cannot be of help to the applicant.
7. Next the applicant has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary (Health) Vs. Dr. Anita Puri & Others (1986) Supp.(5) SCR 361), wherein it has been 6 OA No.2659/2015 laid down that expert body like Public Service Commission were best equipped to adjudge the suitability of a person for appointment to the post and their recommendation should be honoured. However in the instant case, we find that the ASRB evaluated the merit of the candidates based on the qualifications that had been prescribed in the advertisement. Since those qualifications themselves have not been found to be appropriate for the post in question, the recommendations of ARSB based on those qualifications also cannot be honoured.
8. Next relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India ( 1991) 3 SCC 47), the applicant has stated that even though a candidate seeking appointment to a civil post does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed after figuring in the merit list for the same, yet it does not mean that the authorities have the licence to act in an arbitrary manner and deny appointment to such a candidate. Further relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs. Dilbagh Singh and Ors (1993) 1 SCC 154), the applicant has submitted that he was aggrieved by the arbitrary and malafide action of the respondents in denying him appointment. However, we are not convinced whether these judgments can be of any help to the applicant. This is because we have already come to the conclusion above that the qualifications advertised for the post were flawed and, therefore, the respondents had ample justifications in cancelling the aforesaid recruitment process and re-advertising the post. We do not feel that the respondents acted in a arbitrary or in a malafide manner. 7 OA No.2659/2015
9. The applicant has also alleged malice in law and relied on several judgments in this regard. Some of them are as follows:-
(1) R.S.Garg Vs. State of U.P, AIR 2006 SC 2912 (2) P.Mohanan Pillai Vs.State of Kerala, 2007 AIR 2840.
(3) M.P.State Co-op. Dairy Fedn. Ltd. Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar, (2009) 15 SCC 221.
(4) Kalabharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, (2010) 9 SCC 437.
(5) Swaran Singh Chand Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, AIR 2010 SC 151. (6) Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad, (2012) 4 SCC 407.
However, as stated above, we do not find that such was the situation in the instant case. Hence the judgments are also of no help to the applicant.
10. Further relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Comptroller and Auditor General of India Vs. K.S. Jagannathan (AIR 1987 SC 537), the applicant stated that the Court not only has power to issue a positive mandamus but it had the duty to do so. In the instant case, we do not see that there is any need to issue a mandamus to the respondents as their action in denying appointment to the applicant appears to be justified.
11. Lastly, the applicant has relied on the judgment of Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1833/2012 dated 29.06.2015 in the case of Dr. Khazan Singh Vs. ICAR. However, on going through the facts of this case, we find that this case was distinguishable from the applicant's case. This is 8 OA No.2659/2015 because in Khazan Singh's case this Tribunal had come to a definite conclusion that the action of the respondents in denying appointment to the applicant therein and re-advertising the post was arbitrary. On the other hand, in the instant case we have found ample justifications in the same.
12. Respondents, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No. 3042/2014 dated 14.07.2015 in the case of Dr. Chitrangad Singh Raghav Vs. Union of India, wherein it was held that for valid reasons a candidate even though selected by the Screening Committee can be denied appointment as merely by figuring in the merit list, the candidates does not acquire a right to be appointed to the post. In our opinion, the aforesaid judgment squarely covers the instant case.
13. In view of the above, we find that there is no merit in this OA. Hence, the same is dismissed. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (Justice Permod Kohli) Member (A) Chairman 'sk'