Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad

K K Chavda vs M/O Defence on 12 August, 2021

                      (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO.406/2014)            1


               CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                       AHMEDABAD BENCH
                  Original Application No.406/2014.

                 Dated this the 12th day of August, 2021.

CORAM:
Hon'ble Sh. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. A.K. Dubey, Member (A)

1.   Shri Kirankumar,
     Son of Shri Kimjibhai Chavda, Helper,
     Age: 23 years,
     Residing at: Shidhathgrath Society,
     Jamjodhpur - 360 530.
                                                       ...Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. M.S.Trivedi)

     VS

1.   Union of India, thorough
     Chief Administrative Officer,
     Command Civilian Personnel Officer,
     Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,
     Mumbai - 400 023.

2.   President,
     Airforce Women Welfare, Association,
     Air Force Station, Samana,
     Jamjodhpur, Jamnagar - 360 520.
                                                       ...Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. H. D. Shukla)
                          (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO.406/2014)                       2




                                 ORDER(ORAL)

           PER: Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)

1. This OA has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

"(A) That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow this petition. (B) That the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to hold/declare that inaction on the part of the respondents not considering the case of the applicant for regular appointment to the post of Helper or appointment to the post of Multi Tasking Staff in pursuant to written test held on 10.05.2014 is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and unjust.

(C) That the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for regular appointment to the post of Helper or appointment to the post of Multi Tasking Staff in pursuant to written test held on 10.05.2014 with all consequential benefits."

2. The counsel for the applicant Mr. M.S.Trivedi submits that the applicant was appointed as helper in the office of the respondents from July, 2012. Further, letter dated 01.04.2013 was also issued by the 2 nd respondent i.e., Air Force Wives Welfare Association (in short "AFWWA") in his favour whereby he was appointed as Thrift Shop helper for a period of 11 months till 28.02.2014 (Annexure-A/2 Colly.) Thereafter, the tenure of the applicant was extended and continued from time to time by the respondents. Presently he is working as helper. The applicant has submitted his application for the post of Multi Tasking Staff pursuant to the recruitment process initiated by the 1st respondent in response where to the applicant was called for the written test vide letter dated 21.04.2014 (Annexure-A/1). The applicant appeared at the written test held on 10.05.2014. For the reasons best known to the respondents, the applicant was neither informed about the (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO.406/2014) 3 results of the written test nor was he called for the skill test as mentioned in letter dated 21.04.2014. Hence, this OA.

3. On receipt of notice issued by this Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., Chief Administrative Officer, Command Civilian Personnel Officer, Mumbai filed the reply through Station Commander contending therein that the applicant was engaged by the respondent No.2 i.e. AFWWA, and the said association is a non-governmental association. AFWWA is a private body registered under the Societies Act. Therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the respondent No.2. Further, it is contended that the applicant had never worked for respondent No.2. He was engaged by the respondent No.2 as a helper for some time which was for a part time spells. His continuation as a helper with respondent No.2 does not entitle him to make a claim for a preference in appointment in organisation of respondent No.1.

4. It is stated that the applicant had applied for civilian employment for the post of Safaiwala (SC) in response to the advertisement in the Employment News dated 28.12.2013 to 03.01.2014. His application was considered by the Screening Committee of Board of Officers. Finally, the selection committee of Board of Officers found that the applicant was not suitable for the post of Safaiwala, as he was placed 5th in the merit list and there was only one post reserved for Safaiwala.. Therefore, he was not considered for appointment to the post of Safaiwala (SC). The list of candidates selected for the post was displayed on the notice board. The selected persons have already joined in the service. The applicant has not impleaded any of the selected persons as party respondent. Even otherwise, applicant has no legitimate right to claim the appointment.

5. The applicant has filed his rejoinder and reiterated his submissions contained in the OA. Further, he denied that the applicant's prayer is against respondent No.2. His grievance is against respondent No.1. It is submitted that respondent No.2 had not engaged him in their private capacity.

6. It is noticed that respondent No.2 by filing their reply denied the claim of the applicant and submitted that AFWWA(L) is a non-governmental association working for the welfare of the wives of members of Air Force Station, Samana. It is Society registered under the Societies Act having registration No.4708 dated 28.10.1980. All the appointment of helper and staff at Air Force Wives Welfare Association Local has been done by Honorary Joint Secretary. The respondent No.2 cannot appoint any person on regular basis for the respondent No.1. As such, the applicant has wrongly impleaded the respondent No.2 in the present OA. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Mr. Joy Mathew filed a separate application and submits that Respondent No.2 had filed MA No.171/2015 for deletion of name of respondent No.2 from the party array. The said MA was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 16.07.2015.

7. Considering the factual matrix, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant does not possess any legitimate right to claim appointment with Respondent No.1. In the reply of the first respondent, it is categorically stated that applicant stood at Sl.No.5 in the merit list as a result of the written test conducted by it for the post in question; it had selected and appointed the candidate who stood higher in merit than the applicant. The applicant has not disputed the conduct of the written test. The facts have not been rebutted by the applicant nor any material contrary to it has been placed on record.

Under the circumstances, OA lacks merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No Costs.

 (A.K.Dubey)                                          (Jayesh V.Bhairavia)
Administrative Member                                    Judicial Member


SKV