Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
S Sharavanan vs M/O Science And Technology on 18 December, 2018
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 180/01082/2014
Tuesday, this the 18th day of December, 2018
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. E.K. Bharat Bhushan, Administrative Member
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judicial Member
S. Sharavanan, S/o. G.Subramania Siva,aged 48 years,
Section Head (Legal) & Public Information Officer,
CDAC, Vellayambalam Thiruvananthapuram - 695 014,
Residing at 78J, CSM Road, Behind Althara,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033. ..... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. P. Nandakumar)
Versus
1. Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC),
Corporate Office, Pune University Campus, Ganeshkhind Road,
Pune - 411 007, represented by its Director General.
2. The Head - Corporate HRD, Central for Development of
Advanced Computing, Corporate Office, Agriculture College
Campus, Near District Industries Centre, Shivaji Nagar,
Pune 411 005.
3. The Executive Director, Centre for Development of Advanced
Computing, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram -
695 033. ..... Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. N. Anilkumar, SCGSC)
This application having been heard on 11.12.2018 the Tribunal on
18.12.2018 delivered the following:
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judicial Member -
The relief claimed by the applicant are as under:
"I) To call for the records leading to Annexure A9 and set aside the same to the extent it invites application for filling up the post of Manager (HR) at Thiruvananthapuram.2
II) To declare that the applicant was entitled to be appointed as Chief Personnel Officer pursuant to Annexure A1 notification as the Selection Committee was not empowered to change the post for which the applicant applied.
III) To declare that Clause f of Annexure A2 is against public policy and hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and hence unenforceable.
IV) To direct the respondents to give appointment to the post of Chief Personnel Officer (Manager HR) to the applicant with effect from 30.6.2011 with all attendant benefits including arrears of pay.
V) To issue such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is presently working as Section Head (Legal) & Public Information Officer in the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (in short CDAC). He is a Graduate in Science and having MA (Personnel Management), M.Ed, LLB and Post Graduate Diploma holder in Labour Law and Personnel Management. He had 22 years experience before joining CDAC in the filed of administration, Human Resources, Personnel, Purchase and Legal field under Central Government and Public Sector undertakings. He had 17 years experience in the areas of administration, HR, purchase, legal and general management in the Indian Air Force at supervisory level and also practiced as a lawyer from 3.3.2005 to 17.4.2006 and from 3.11.2008 to 9.3.2010. He also worked in various capacities in several renowned organizations in different periods. Two posts of Chief Personnel Officers in PB-3 Rs. 15,600-39,100/- with GP of Rs. 7,600/- was notified vide Annexure A1. The qualification prescribed was LLM with 9 years experience or 2 years full time MBA/PG in Mass Communication/LLB or equivalent relevant professional qualification with 12 years relevant experience. The applicant applied for the post of Chief 3 Personnel Officer and he was called for interview on 27.4.2011. Applicant was offered with an appointment to the post of Senior Administrative Officer in PB-3 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600/- one level lower to the post advertised. The applicant accepted the appointment to the post of Senior Administrative Officer and joined on 30.6.2011. Since the post of Chief Personnel Officer is still lying vacant applicant submitted a representation dated 27.7.2011 before the 3rd respondent requesting to upgrade his post as Chief Personnel Officer. The representation of the applicant was rejected vide Annexure A5. Aggrieved the applicant has filed the present OA with above quoted relief.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents. They entered appearance through Shri N. Anilkumar, SCGSC who contended that the selection committee adjudged the suitability of the candidates on the basis of their qualifications, experience and performance in the interview. The committee based on the performance of the candidates did not find any candidate suitable for appointment to the advertised post. The committee further evaluated the suitability of these candidates for appointment to the scale with Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600/- which is one level below the advertised post. The committee found one candidate i.e. the applicant fit for appointment to the post of Senior Administrative Officer with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/-. Accordingly, the committee recommended that the applicant maybe offered the post with Grade Pay of Rs.6,600/-. The applicant accepted the offer of appointment as Senior Administrative Officer. In the appointment letter the following statements were mentioned:
4
"This has reference to your application for the post of Chief Personnel Officer and subsequent interview you had with the Board of Selection on 27.4.2011. You were called for an interview for the post of Chief Personnel Officer in PB-3 with Grade Pay of Rs. 7,600/- against our advertisement. The interview committee, based on your qualification, experience and the performance in the interview selected you for the appointment for the post of Senior Administrative Officer in PB-3, 15600- 39100 with Grade Pay Rs. 6600/- i.e. one level lower to the post advertised. The same was accepted by the applicant by stating I have accepted all terms and conditions as stated above under his signature."
Respondents pray for dismissing the OA.
4. Heard Mr. P. Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned SCGSC appearing for the respondents. Perused the records.
5. The short point to be considered by this Tribunal in the present Original Application is whether the applicant is entitled for the post of Chief Personnel Officer or Senior Administrative Officer? The applicant has applied for the post of Chief Personnel Officer and he has been offered after due process of selection a post of the Senior Administrative Officer in PB-3 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600/- and he has accepted the offer of appointment. Now the applicant is claiming that he should have been offered a post of Chief Personnel Officer instead of Senior Administrative Officer. In order to resolve this controversy we have to see the law position in the matter. Appointment by way of selection consists of certain criteria such as scrutiny of documents, qualification, experience and the performance in viva voce/interview by the selection committee. Applicant has applied for the post of Chief Personnel Officer pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents which consists following conditions for selection process: 5
"The appointment would be against positions sanctioned by governing council, in regular and continuing contract vacancies, available at C-DAC subject to the applicable provisions of Bye laws and other applicable rules. The selected candidates will be appointed against, either regular post or continuing contract post, at the discretion of the management. ................
Selection Process :
Mode of Selection:- Selection processes viz. Interview, group discussions etc., as deemed fit by the management will be deployed. Management reserves the right to change/modify the selection process at anytime, during the process at its discretion. The decision of the management will be final and binding.
The qualification and experience prescribed are the minimum requirements and possession of the same does not automatically make the candidates entitled to be called for selection processes. There will be an initial screening based on the academic and other parameters given in the on-line application and only those screened-in will be considered for further selection process. The management reserves the right to increase the minimum eligibility criteria/cut off limits, in the event of the number of applicants more, for any post(s), at its discretion. Candidates will be selected on the basis of their academic credentials, experience profile, performance in the interview and such other selection processes/parameters, as deemed fit by management."
By this it is clearly depicted that in case found not suitable for the post of Chief Personnel Officer they may select the candidates to the post of Senior Administrative Officer. So at the time of application itself applicant was well aware of the said conditions. He has never objected to it and participated in the selection process. In a recent judgment the apex court in D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakom & Ors. - (2017) 9 SCC 478 held that challenge by unsuccessful candidate after taking part in it are estopped from challenging the selection process. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:
"11. As far as the present case is concerned an advertisement was issued by Respondent No.6 inviting applications for the post of Music Teacher in Samuel LMS High School. Respondent No.1 did not raise any objection at that stage that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment and she should be considered for promotion. Not only that, she in fact, applied for the post and took part in the selection process. After having taken part in the selection process and being found lower in merit to the appellant, she cannot at this stage be permitted to turn around and claim that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the objection is not in consonance with the law 6 laid down by this Court. In view of this we need not go into the other issues raised."
Therefore, a person who once appeared in the selection process cannot challenge the same. Further service law is a contract and once an offer is given to the applicant he is not under any pressure to accept it. In case if it is accepted by the applicant by conduct or in writing with acceptance letter, he is said to have fulfilled the contract. Needless to say that the salary is consideration for the same. Once the contract is completed the parties cannot wriggle out of the terms and conditions attached thereto. Thus this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant was well aware being a law graduate that he could have been offered or selected for the post of Senior Administrative Officer also. It is not only the lone case of the applicant and there were five more candidates who were offered the same post in the similar situation. Hence, we find nothing wrong in the action of the respondents.
6. The other contention raised by the applicant that one of the member of the selection committee has not signed the minutes of the selection and subsequently he has signed it does not make any difference because he could not have signed due to non-availability or any other reason. However, subsequently he had signed it on 5.5.2011. Therefore, the second contention also raised by the applicant in this Original Application do not stand. 7
7. In view of the above we do not find any merit in this Original Application. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(ASHISH KALIA) (E.K. BHARAT BHUSHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER "SA" 8 Original Application No. 180/01082/2014 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the notification issued by the 2nd respondent. Annexure A2 - True copy of interview letter dated 13.4.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent. Annexure A3 - True copy of offer of appointment dated 23.5.2011. Annexure A4 - True copy of representation dated 27.7.2011 submitted before the 3rd respondent. Annexure A5 - True copy of letter dated 1.11.2011 issued by Head HR&A Annexure A6 - True copy of the representation dated 30.1.2012 submitted before the 3rd respondent. Annexure A7 - True copy of letter dated 17.2.2012 of Head HR&A. Annexure A8 - True copy of minutes of meeting of the selection committee held on 27.4.2011. Annexure A8(a) - True copy of minutes of meeting of the selection committee held on 27.4.2011. Annexure A9 - True copy of the notification ADVT No. CORP/GrA/02/2014 issued by the 2nd respondent. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1 - True copy of the office order No. HR&A/HR/340(86)/2014 dated 4.12.2014 issued by the CDAC Annexure R2 - True copy of the minutes of the selection committee meeting held on 27.4.2011 at CDAC. Annexure R3 - True copy of the letter dated 30.5.2011 9
intimating acceptance along with its annexures.
Annexure R4 - True copy of the letter dated 30.6.2011 sent by the applicant to the Executive Director, CDAC.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-