Madras High Court
M.Deepaganesan vs Union Of India Rep.By on 30 July, 2018
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 02.04.2019
Delivered on : 09.04.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.21602 of 2018
and
WMP.No.25365 of 2018
M.Deepaganesan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Union of India rep.by
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Tamil Nadu,
No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Chennai – 600 034.
2.Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,
(HQRS) (Admin & TDS)
No.121 Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in
OA/310/01011/2018 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal
culminating in the (i)order dated 30.07.2018 and also call for the
records from the respondents pertaining to recruitment of candidates
under Sports Quota for the year 2018-19, Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry
Region, culminating in the (ii)final list of Selected candidates published
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
by the Income Tax Department vide Memorandum
Ref.No.C.No.26(5)/Estt/Sports/2018 dated 20.07.2018, quash the
same and direct the respondents to provide employment to the
petitioner in the rank of Tax Assistant/Multitasking staff in the Income
Tax Department, Chennai Region in terms of the notification dated
18.05.2018 Income Tax Sports Recruitment 2018-19 and pursuant to
the Memorandum dated 04.07.2018 purporting to shortlist candidates
for recruitment under Sports Quota 2018-19 issue of call letter for
certificate verification/eligibility within a time limit stipulated by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Harikrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.M.T.Arunan, SC
ORDER
M.VENUGOPAL, J.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
2.The Petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.07.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, in OA/310/01011/2018 declining to direct the Respondents to provide employment to him in the rank of Tax Assistant/Multitasking Staff in the Income Tax Department, Tamil Nadu Region based on the Memorandum dated 04.07.2018 purporting to shortlist the candidates http://www.judis.nic.in 3 for recruitment under Sports Quota 2018-2019 – issuance of call letter for certificate verification/eligibility, within a prescribed time frame.
3.Earlier, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in OA/310/01011/2018 on 30.07.2018 (filed by the Writ Petitioner as the Applicant), at paragraph 5, had observed the following:
“5.On perusal, it is seen that the applicant has not made any allegation against the selection committee of personal bias or malafide or even adopting a whimsical or arbitrary selection procedure for the purpose of shortlisting. Under such circumstances, while we are not inclined to consider the relief sought, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met in this case if the respondents are directed to inform the applicant of the process adopted for shortlisting, including the norms and criteria under which the suitability of the candidate is assessed, based on which the applicant could not be included in the shortlist of the selected candidates. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” and disposed of the Original Application at the admission stage.
4.The Petitioner is a B.A History Graduate (through Distance Learning) from Annamalai University in the year 2016 and is a 'Hockey Player'. He had represented the Income Tax Department in numerous http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Tournaments from the years 2010 to 2016 namely (i)Kovilpatti Lakshmiammal Memorial Hockey Tournament (All India Level);
(ii)Vadipatti State Level Hockey Tournament; (iii)Andra State Level Hockey Tournament (2014); (iv)Basheer Ahamed State Level Hockey Tournament (2015); and (v)Chennai Hockey League (Inter Departmental Level). He had also represented University of Madras in various Hockey Tournaments for the years from 2009 to 2016.
5.The Petitioner belongs to Hindu - Telugu Chetty Community, which is recognised as Backward Class by the Government of India, Ministry of Welfare Resolution No.12011/68/93-BCC/C dated 10.09.1993 published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part/Section First dated 13.09.1993. In fact, the Tahsildar, Dindigul, has issued a certificate that he belongs to Hindu - Telugu Chetty Community, recognised as a Backward Class. Apart from that, the Hockey Unit of Tamil Nadu, which is affiliated to Hockey India, New Delhi, had issued Form II Certificate, dated 14.05.2017 and 03.06.2017, for employment to as Class III/Class IV Post under the Central Government. Also that, the University of Madras had issued Form III Certificate to the Petitioner for employment to Class III/ Class IV Posts Service under the Central/State Governments. http://www.judis.nic.in 5
6.The version of the Petitioner is that in the years 2009, 2014 and 2015, the Respondents had called for applications from eligible persons for recruitment to the post of 'Tax Assistant and/Multitasking Staff' under 'Sports Quota'. Though the Petitioner had applied for the same, he was not considered for some reason or other. Despite the same, he continued to represent the Income Tax Department in numerous Hockey Tournaments till 2016-17.
7.The Petitioner states that for recruitment under 'Sports Quota' 2018-19, for filling up the posts of 'Inspector of Income Tax/Tax Assistant/Multitasking Staff' for Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry Region, applications were called for by the Respondents on 18.05.2018 to be submitted online. He applied on 08.06.2018 and his online application was assigned Ref.No.ITSPORTS201801226. He received a communication on 04.07.2018 in regard to shortlisting candidates under 'Sports Quota' – issue of Call Letter for Certificate Verification/eligibility to participate in Field Trials. He appeared before the concerned Officer on 16.07.2018 and produced all his certificates for verification. A Field Trial was conducted on 17.07.2018, in which, he took part. After Certificate Verification and Field Trials, some candidates were shortlisted. However, his name was not found in the final shortlist.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
8.The grievance of the Petitioner is that there cannot be any justifiable reason for not considering his candidature as he fulfills all the parameters. Hence, he filed OA/310/01011/2018 before the Tribunal. Also that, most of the selected candidates do not belong to Chennai/Pondicherry Region. In the final selected list published by the Respondents on 20.07.2018, 32 candidates were selected under 'Sports Quota', out of which, 6 candidates were selected under the 'Sports Discipline of Hockey'. Unfortunately, the Petitioner was not considered.
9.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 30.07.2018 in OA/310/01011/2018 to the effect that declining to consider the relief prayed for by the Petitioner in the Original Application, is not sustainable in the eye of Law.
10.Advancing his argument, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the order of the Tribunal in OA/310/01011/2018 dated 30.07.2018 in directing the Respondents to inform the Writ Petitioner/Applicant of the process adopted for shortlisting, including the norms and criteria under which the suitability http://www.judis.nic.in 7 of the candidates was assessed, based on which, the Writ Petitioner/Applicant could not be included in the shortlist of the selected candidates etc., cannot be countenanced, because of the fact that it had issued that direction mechanically without applying its mind.
11.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner takes a forceful plea that the Respondents had denied the Petitioner of his 'Right to Employment' and such denial is also violative of the 'Right to Equality' and 'Equal Protection of Law' guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
12.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the selected candidate Arun Kumar in Sl.No.17 is much junior to the Petitioner and the other selected candidates in Sl.No.29 (Sanjib Ekka), Sl.No.30 (Karanbir Singh), Sl.No.31 (Harmanjit Singh) and Sl.No.32 (Akshay Hooda), had not represented the Income Tax Department in Hockey Matches at any point of time nor they do not belong to Chennai Region.
13.Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the entire selection process, which is the subject matter in issue, was made in violation of the Constitutional safeguards. http://www.judis.nic.in 8
14.In response, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 contends that the sports persons, who were appointed in the department generally participate in numerous Tournaments and whenever there is shortage of players in a particular discipline of sports to compete in Tournaments, guest/freelance players in the respective fields were called informally from outside the department and this would not confer any right to such players to stake a claim for appointment in the department. Furthermore, the DOPT O.M.No.14034/1/95-Estt(D) dated 04.05.1995, which specifies the rules and regulations for recruitment of meritorious sports persons, does not bestow any 'Right of Employment' to such freelance players.
15.The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the selection process consists of three stages viz., (i)Certificate Verification; (ii)Field Trials; and (iii)Personality Test. During the recruitment for 'Sports Persons' in the year 2018, 185 applications were shortlisted for Certificate Verification in the discipline 'Hockey', out of which, 92 candidates were shortlisted for Field Trials. In the shortlisted 92 candidates, 40 of them were under 'Forward', 41 under 'Mid Field' and 11 under 'Defence' category. Out of the shortlisted 92 candidates, 19 were found to be qualified for final interview, after the http://www.judis.nic.in 9 Field Trials. Further, the vacancies earmarked for Hockey were 6, out of which, the allocation for each position is as under:
(a)Full back/Defence - 1
(b)Half Line/Mid Field - 3
(c)Forward - 2
16.The Learned Counsel for the Respondents points out the break-up of marks (maximum of 100 marks) fixed for qualification, which runs thus:
(a)For assessment of recognised Sports Achievements as per norms i.e., Certificate/Documents Verification - 70 marks
(b)For game skill, physical fitness & coach's observations during Field Trials - 20 marks
(c)Interview - 10 marks
17.The Learned Counsel for the Respondents further points out that the marks for sports achievements were reckoned on the basis of the candidates' participation in International, National and Inter- University Competitions and the positions won in such Competitions and the marks assigned in those categories were as below:
http://www.judis.nic.in 10 Achievement in Winning Winning Winning Participation Position -I Position -II Position -III INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION Category (i) – 70 68 66 65 Olympics/World Championships Category (ii) – 64 62 60 59 Asian / Commonwealth / Afro Asian Games Category (iii) – 58 56 54 53 Other International Tournaments like SAF Games NATIONAL 52 50 48 28 COMPETITION (SENIOR) NATIONAL 46 44 42 26 COMPETITION (JUNIOR) INTER- 40 38 36 24 UNIVERSITY COMPETITION NATIONAL 34 32 30 22 SCHOOL COMPETITION Further, it is represented on behalf of the Respondents that the Petitioner was awarded a mark of '28', based on the documents furnished by him in the above said category. Above that, the Petitioner was awarded the mark of 6.5, out of 20, in the Field Trials and in all, he was awarded the marks of 34.5 (28 + 6.5).
http://www.judis.nic.in 11
18.The Learned Counsel for the Respondents draws the attention of this Court to the fact that the Petitioner stood at 27 th Rank in the 'Mid Field' category. For the three posts in 'Half Line/Mid Field' category, 19 candidates were called for the Personal Interview. Since the Petitioner's Rank was 27, he was not called for the Personal Interview.
19.While summing up, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents emphatically comes out with a plea that the entire selection process of sports persons for appointment by the Government of India is governed by the DoPT O.M.No.14037/01/2013-Estt(D) dated 03.10.2013 and that the procedure mentioned was strictly complied with. As such, the selection was made strictly on the basis of the merits of the Applicants. Viewed in that perspective, it is the contention of the Respondents that the grievances of the Petitioner that the selected candidates are from other States and that the whole Selection Process is vitiated, because of 'Bias and Nepotism', are not well-founded.
20.The Learned Counsel for the Respondents also points out the marks awarded for the shortlisted candidates in the 'Mid Field' position, which are as under:
http://www.judis.nic.in 12 Sl.No. Name Highest Sports Achievements Eligibility Position Marks Field Trials Total Calender years 2015-2018 only Marks (A) (B) (A) + (B) Merit / Participation 41 Karanbir Singh Form 2 1st Place – Jr. Nationals - Yes Center Half 46 9.5 55.5 2018 42 Harmanjit Singh Form 2 1st Place – Jr. Nationals Yes Center Half 42 9.5 51.5 43 Akshay Hooda Form 2 rd 3 Place – Jr. Nationals Yes Center Half 42 9 51 – 2015
21.On a careful consideration of the respective contentions, this Court comes to an irresistible conclusion that the Petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief as claimed by him in the present Writ Petition. Further, the shortlisted candidates viz., Karanbir Singh (Sl.No.41) -1st Place in Junior Nationals, 2018, Center Half, was awarded the total marks of 55.5 (46 + 9.5). Similarly, Harmanjit Singh (Sl.No.42) - 1st Place in Junior Nationals, Center Half, was awarded the total marks of 51.5 (42 + 9.5). Likewise, Akshay Hooda (Sl.No.43), 3rd Place in Junior Nationals, 2015, Center Half, secured the total marks of 51 (42 + 9). At the risk of repetition, this Court points out that the Petitioner was awarded a total mark of 34.5 (28 + 6.5) by the Selection Committee, based on the documents furnished by him. In fact, he stood 27th Rank in the 'Mid Field' category.
22.Looking at from any angle, the observations of the Tribunal in negativing the Writ Petitioner/Applicant's relief as sought for in the http://www.judis.nic.in 13 Original application and the consequent direction issued to the Respondents to inform him of the process adopted for shortlisting including the norms and criteria under which the suitability of the candidate was assessed, based on which, he could not be included in the shortlist of the selected candidates, are without any legal flaw. Consequently, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits.
23.In fine, this Writ Petition is dismissed. The order of the Tribunal in OA/310/01011/2018 dated 30.07.2018 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons ascribed in the present Writ Petition. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(M.V., J.) (S.K.R., J.) 09.04.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking /Non-speaking order rk To
1.Union of India rep.by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034.
http://www.judis.nic.in 14 M.VENUGOPAL, J.
AND SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
rk
2.Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, (HQRS) (Admin & TDS) No.121 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034.
3.The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai - 600 001.
Pre-delivery order in W.P.No.21602 of 2018 09.04.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in